Full Chapter Nurse Educator S Guide To Best Teaching Practice A Case Based Approach 1St Edition Keeley C Harmon PDF

Nurse Educator s Guide to Best
Teaching Practice A Case Based

Approach 1st Edition Keeley C. Harmon
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/nurse-educator-s-guide-to-best-teaching-practice-a-c
ase-based-approach-1st-edition-keeley-c-harmon/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Pathology of Graft vs Host Disease A Case Based

Teaching Guide Cecilia C. S. Yeung
https://textbookfull.com/product/pathology-of-graft-vs-host-
disease-a-case-based-teaching-guide-cecilia-c-s-yeung/
A Case-Based Approach to Emergency Psychiatry 1st

Edition Maloy
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-case-based-approach-to-
emergency-psychiatry-1st-edition-maloy/
Evidence Based Critical Care A Case Study Approach 1st

Edition Robert C. Hyzy (Eds.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/evidence-based-critical-care-a-
case-study-approach-1st-edition-robert-c-hyzy-eds/
The Educator s Guide to Texas School Law Ninth Edition

Walsh
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-educator-s-guide-to-texas-
school-law-ninth-edition-walsh/
Hammertoes A Case Based Approach Emily A. Cook
https://textbookfull.com/product/hammertoes-a-case-based-
approach-emily-a-cook/
Management of Lymphomas A Case Based Approach 1st

Edition Jasmine Zain
https://textbookfull.com/product/management-of-lymphomas-a-case-
based-approach-1st-edition-jasmine-zain/
PET/MR Imaging : A Case-Based Approach 1st Edition

Rajesh Gupta
https://textbookfull.com/product/pet-mr-imaging-a-case-based-
approach-1st-edition-rajesh-gupta/
Spine imaging : a case-based guide to imaging and

management 1st Edition Gupta
https://textbookfull.com/product/spine-imaging-a-case-based-
guide-to-imaging-and-management-1st-edition-gupta/
Psychologizing A Personal Practice Based Approach to

Psychology Patrick M Whitehead
https://textbookfull.com/product/psychologizing-a-personal-
practice-based-approach-to-psychology-patrick-m-whitehead/
Nurse Educator’s
Guide to Best
Teaching Practice
A Case-Based Approach
Keeley C. Harmon
Joe Ann Clark
Jeffery M. Dyck
Vicki Moran
123
Nurse Educator’s Guide to Best Teaching Practice
Keeley C. Harmon • Joe Ann Clark
Jeffery M. Dyck • Vicki Moran
Nurse Educator’s Guide

to Best Teaching Practice
A Case-Based Approach
Keeley C. Harmon, PhD, RN Joe Ann Clark, EdD, RN (Retired)
Our Lady of the Lake Regional Our Lady of the Lake College
Medical Center Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Vicki Moran, PhD, RN, CNE, APHN-BC
Jeffery M. Dyck, MSN Saint Louis University
British Columbia Institute of Technology St Louis, MO, USA
Burnaby, BC, Canada
ISBN 978-3-319-42537-5 ISBN 978-3-319-42539-9 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42539-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016948212
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland
First, I dedicate this book to the many
educators I have known over the years who
have worked tirelessly to develop teaching
methodologies which would more effectively
meet their student’s needs. Second, I
dedicate this book to my daughter Keeley
Harmon who encouraged/pushed her mom to
become a part of this endeavor. For this, and
her constant encouragement, I thank her.
—Joe Ann Clark.
I dedicate this book to my understanding and
loving family: To my children, Nicholas and
Elise, and to my mother, Joe Ann. Nothing I
do in this life could be accomplished without
their love, patience, and support. This book
is also dedicated in loving memory of my
dearest father and late husband, Alan. I feel
their guidance and support in a heavenly
way. I also dedicate this book to the
hardworking nurse educators who work
diligently and strive to provide our future
nurses with an education focused on
promoting the best patient care outcomes
through our constantly changing healthcare
environment.
—Keeley C. Harmon.
Heartfelt thanks to my patient and
understanding family, who so often have to
report, “Dad’s at his computer again!” I am
sincerely indebted to the leaders in the
nursing department at the British Columbia
Institute of Technology, who have shown
remarkable flexibility, foresight, and empathy
in allowing me to craft a unique working
arrangement. Finally, I dedicate this work to
the many students whom I’ve had the
privilege to teach and who are so eminently
worthy of not only sustaining, but growing,
this fascinating profession.
—Jeffery M. Dyck.
I am truly inspired by many people in my life
to which I dedicate this book. First and
foremost to my husband, who has supported
and created a culture in our family to reach
for the stars and if you work hard enough,
you will achieve what you deserve. Second,
to my five children, who think I am always
texting people! Finally, to the many nursing
educators that I work with. The ability to
transform this profession starts with how we
create critical thinking, compassion, and
care in the classroom and clinical setting
with the students.
—Vicki Moran.
Preface
It is the belief of the authors that nurse educators are important people! This state-
ment is not true just because the authors, who happen to be nurse educators, pro-
claim it, but because it is also documented in the literature. The National League for
Nursing (NLN), in its 2002 statement on the preparation of nurse educators, stated:
“Nurse Educators are the key resource in preparing a nursing workforce that will
provide quality care to meet the health care needs of our population” (NLN Board
of Governors, 2002). Halstead (2011) writes that nurse educators “influence the
future of the profession through the quality of the nurses they prepare to practice”
(p. 357). “Key resource in preparing the nursing workforce”—“influence the future
of the profession”! Those are strong statements that emphasize the importance of
what nurse educators do. Indeed, they make the faculty role tempting to the nurse
who wishes to be a part of the process.
However, there is also evidence indicating that teaching is not easy. Brookfield
(2006) describes it as “an activity full of unexpected events, unlooked-for surprises
and unanticipated twists and turns that takes place in a system that assumes that
teaching and learning are controllable and predictable” (p. xi). Brookfield’s descrip-
tion of teaching certainly applies in nursing, whether in a classroom, laboratory,
online, or clinical environment. All are fertile ground for unexpected surprises,
twists and turns.
It is sometimes implied that because nurses teach patients and staff, it follows
that teaching nursing students comes naturally. “All nurses are teachers” is a famil-
iar—but dubious—adage. The role of the nurse educator is intricate. Over time,
nursing education has moved from the service sector to college and university set-
tings, and the role of nursing faculty has evolved and become increasingly complex
(Finke, 2009, p. 3). It requires the knowledge and application of teaching method-
ologies in varied learning environments with nontraditional students. Educators
work with students from diverse cultures and backgrounds with different learning
styles. Educators construct and analyze tests and counsel students. They are role
models in terms of demonstrating caring, not only for patients and families, but for
students as well. They need to walk a fine line between expressing their concern for
their students and not fostering dependence. Above all, they are expected to prepare
vii
viii Preface
graduates who can function safely and competently in an ever-changing healthcare

environment. These skills are very different from the skills that one learns when
becoming a nurse!
The qualifications of nurses who decide to enter nursing education vary. Many
are advanced practice nurses who have a background of rich clinical experience but
scant teaching experience. Novice educators may have experience in teaching, but
little clinical experience. These groups may be very different but they have one need
in common—tools for becoming more skilled teachers.
It is not the purpose of this book to be a compendium of all that is known about
the topic of teaching in nursing. Rather, it is the premise of the authors that there is
a need for a resource to assist nurse educators, the novice and the more experienced,
in working through some of the issues and challenges they are likely to encounter in
their day-to-day teaching experiences.
This book is designed to be an easy-to-use handbook of essential teaching skills
and tools for nurse educators. Preceded by a discussion of the principles of teaching
and learning, it explores topics such as classroom teaching, clinical experiences,
teaching in the simulation laboratory, and online learning. Each chapter begins with
information about the basics of teaching and learning in that specific environment,
followed by scenarios that focus on the issues most commonly encountered by fac-
ulty in that environment. The scenarios present a variety of actions the faculty mem-
ber may take and describe rationales and/or potential problems that result from
these actions. The chapters also include specific tools and information designed to
assist the reader in preparation for the teaching role, such as examples of course
syllabuses and activities in the clinical area. This information is derived from the
experiences of the authors, each of whom started teaching as a novice and over the
years has developed tools and techniques designed to assist both the faculty member
and the learner. This book is our opportunity to share our knowledge and experience
and thereby assist nurse educators who are just getting started and trying to “figure
out” how to begin as well as other more experienced faculty who would like to try
other approaches to enhance their teaching.
Baton Rouge, LA, USA Keeley C. Harmon, PhD, RN

Baton Rouge, LA, USA Joe Ann Clark, EdD, RN
Burnaby, BC, Canada Jeffery M. Dyck, MSN
St. Louis, MO, USA Vicki Moran, PhD, RN, CNE, APHN-BC
References
Brookfield, S. (2006). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the class-
room. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Finke, L. (2009). Teaching in nursing: The faculty role. In D. Billings, & J. Halstead (Eds.),
Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Preface ix
Halstead. (2011). The realist adjusts to sails: A commitment to transform nursing education mod-
els. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(6), 357.
NLN Board of Governors. (2002). Position statement: The preparation of nurse educators.
Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.nln.org/docs/default-source/advocacy-public-pol-
icy/the-preparation-of-nurse-faculty.pdf?sfvrsn=0.
Contents
1 Issues and Trends in Nursing Education ................................................ 1

An Educator’s Perspective .......................................................................... 1
Joe Ann Clark.......................................................................................... 1
History of the Development of Nursing Education .................................... 7
Educational Pathways to Become an RN.................................................... 9
Regulation of Nursing Schools ................................................................... 9
NCLEX-RN History ................................................................................... 10
Student Population ...................................................................................... 12
Faculty Role ................................................................................................ 13
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 14
References ................................................................................................... 14
2 Principles of Teaching and Learning....................................................... 17
Vicki Moran ............................................................................................ 17
The Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education ........ 18
Additional Principles of Teaching Nursing ................................................. 20
Student Centeredness .................................................................................. 20
Scenario One: Student Engagement........................................................ 20
Reflective Practice ...................................................................................... 21
Scenario Two: Reflection ........................................................................ 21
Teaching Philosophy ................................................................................... 22
Team ............................................................................................................ 22
Vulnerability ............................................................................................... 23
Learning Environment ................................................................................ 23
Scenario Three: Learning Environment .................................................. 24
Adult Learners ............................................................................................ 24
Scenario Four: Developing Reciprocity and Cooperation
in Students............................................................................................... 25
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 26
References ................................................................................................... 26
xi
xii Contents
3 Classroom Teaching .................................................................................. 27

Keeley Harmon ....................................................................................... 27
Scenario One: The Basics ....................................................................... 28
Scenario Two: Classroom Engagement .................................................. 33
The Flipped Classroom ............................................................................... 34
Scenario Three: Helping the Student Who Is Failing
a Nursing Course..................................................................................... 36
Scenario Four: Incivility in the Classroom ............................................. 38
Scenario Five: Choosing Appropriate Test Items
for Course Examinations......................................................................... 40
Scenario Six: Academic Integrity: Cheating on Examinations ............... 43
Methods Used by Students to Cheat ........................................................... 44
What About Cheating on Assignments? ..................................................... 45
What Should You Do If You Suspect Cheating During
a Classroom Exam?..................................................................................... 45
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 46
References ................................................................................................... 46
4 Clinical Experiences.................................................................................. 49
Keeley Harmon ....................................................................................... 49
Scenario One: Being a Clinical Instructor for the First Time
—What Do I Do? .................................................................................... 50
Scenario Two: Supporting a Student Who Is Performing
a Skill for the First Time in Clinical ....................................................... 54
Scenario Three: Unprepared Student ...................................................... 56
Managing Clinical Unpreparedness When It Occurs.................................. 58
Scenario Four: Not Enough Time—Spending Appropriate
Time with Each Student .......................................................................... 59
Scenario Five: Today’s Student............................................................... 60
Scenario Six: Proper Feedback on Summative Clinical
Evaluative Tools ...................................................................................... 63
Scenario Seven: The Great Intimidator................................................... 64
Faculty and Student Behavior Considered to Be Uncivil ........................... 65
What About Faculty That Tip the Scale and Want
to Be Everyone’s Best Friend?.................................................................... 65
Scenario Eight: Promoting Professionalism in Our Students ................. 66
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 66
References ................................................................................................... 66
Contents xiii
5 Simulation .................................................................................................. 69
Vicki Moran ............................................................................................ 69
Scenario One: Basics of Simulation Preparation .................................... 74
Scenario Two: Students that are Unprepared .......................................... 76
Scenario Three: Letting a Student Fail ................................................... 76
Scenario Four: Reducing the Anxiety of Simulation .............................. 77
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 78
References ................................................................................................... 79
6 Online Learning ........................................................................................ 81
Jeffery M. Dyck ...................................................................................... 81
Scenario One: How Can I Best Get Up to Speed
on My School’s LMS? ............................................................................ 83
Prevalence and Growth of Online Courses in Nursing ............................... 85
Instructors’ Perceptions of Feeling Unprepared.......................................... 86
Scenario Two: Preventing a Lack of Engagement .................................. 92
Scenario Three: Promoting Community ................................................. 96
Scenario Four: How Can I Prevent Academic Dishonesty? ................... 101
Scenario Five: How Can I Stay Connected with My Department
and My Colleagues When Teaching from a Distance? ........................... 105
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 108
References ................................................................................................... 109
Appendix A: Example Course Syllabus ........................................................ 111
Appendix B: Program Outcomes................................................................... 113
Appendix C: Exam Blueprint ........................................................................ 115
Appendix D: Example Case Study ................................................................ 117
Appendix E: Example Welcome Letter ......................................................... 119
Appendix F: Key Discussion Points During Advising ................................. 121
Appendix G: Clinical Organization Tool ...................................................... 123
Appendix H: Example of Clinical Syllabus .................................................. 125
Appendix I: Abbreviated Second Patient Form ........................................... 129

xiv Contents
Appendix J: Example of a Clinical Contract................................................ 131
Appendix K: Sample Action Plan .................................................................. 133
Appendix L: Sample of Debriefing Questions for Simulation .................... 135
Index ................................................................................................................. 137

Chapter 1
Issues and Trends in Nursing Education
An Educator’s Perspective
Joe Ann Clark
In the early stages of preparation for this book, the authors (who collectively have
about 80 years experience in nursing education) spent much time discussing their expe-
riences as nurse educators. Their discussions focused on many of the issues in nursing
education, changes they had witnessed over the years, and challenges which impacted
them as nurse educators. We noted that as nurse educators we felt concern, especially
when we were first starting out, as we were ill-prepared for the role and had often
taught ourselves the skills we needed to get through the day. We questioned if we had
been as effective as we could in helping our students achieve their educational goals.
I started my nursing education in 1951 in a diploma program which was in the
earliest stages of transitioning into a baccalaureate program. When I entered the
program as a student, the requirements for admission were that you have “good”
grades in high school, pass the entrance examination, be at least 5 feet tall, and
weigh within “normal” range for your height.
Tuition at that time was $125.00 for the first year—that included room and board,
textbooks, uniforms, and laundry of uniforms. The second year, tuition was $50.00 and
the third year, $25.00. That was because during the second and third year students
were, in varying degrees, utilized as staff in the hospital. Almost all of the students were
young (a few of us had a couple of semesters of college), all were female, and most just
out of high school. No one was permitted to be married, and you could not marry while
in school. We were all required to live in the dormitory and obey all of its rules.
The hospital of those days was very different from the clinical environment in
which student learning takes place today. First of all, the patient units were com-
posed of large rooms in which 20 or more patients were placed. There were typi-
cally two such large rooms per unit. The beds were the old “crank” type which
would elevate and lower the head and feet. That was all they were capable of doing!
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

K.C. Harmon et al., Nurse Educator’s Guide to Best Teaching Practice,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42539-9_1
2 1 Issues and Trends in Nursing Education
Each patient had a bell to ring if they needed something—or they just yelled! There
were no “contour” sheets, so students were taught to tuck in the sheets, military
style, in such a manner that they would not move. The beds were placed along the
walls, with pull curtains which could be drawn to provide privacy. However, there
was no air conditioning, so it was very hot and when the curtains around the beds
were drawn, it was even hotter. One good thing about this arrangement (when the
curtains were open) was that you could take one look around the room and see what
was happening with every patient. Each of these nursing units also had one or two
private room for the very sick and/or new postoperative patients. There were no
recovery rooms or intensive care units. There were a few isolation rooms, but not on
every unit. The configuration of those rooms included an elaborate entrance/exit
area which contained all the supplies that a nurse would need to enter and exit the
room. Isolation was fastidiously maintained, a practice that predated the discovery
of antibiotics. There was rampant, active tuberculosis, all sorts of wound infections,
and hepatitis. Tuberculosis was so prevalent that I became positive for TB during
my first semester in school.
There was a very small nurse station which included space to pour medications
and equipment for treatments. Medications were kept in large bottles—no prepack-
aged medications. Nurses had to calculate how many pills to give or how to break
up the pills in order to provide the proper dose for their patients. The proper dosage
was put into a medicine cup, which was glass. After medications had been given the
cups had to be washed and sterilized.
Injections were a big part of nursing care. Almost everyone on medical–surgical
units was given penicillin three to four times a day. Syringes were glass and they
had to be washed and sterilized on the unit after each use. Needles were metal and
nurses had to check them before use and sharpen them when they were dull. The
needles also had to be cleaned after each use and sterilized in the small sterilizers on
each unit. IV bottles were glass; most tubing was rubber, although plastic was
beginning to be used. All rubber tubes on the unit (urinary catheters, gastric tubes,
etc.) had to be cleaned and returned to central supply to be autoclaved. Enema tubes
were washed after use and placed in a container to soak in a soap solution. Bed pans
were washed and after a patient was discharged, they were boiled. The fact at that
time was nothing was disposable!
Nurses had to prepare sterile normal saline, enema solutions, dermatology soaks,
and other solutions on the unit in the treatment room. They had to add medications
to IV bottles in this same room which was the setting for all sorts of tasks. For every
kit that was used, for example, a catheterization kit, the nurse or student had to clean
the equipment and then return it to central supply to be autoclaved. Rubber gloves
were kept on the units, to be used for “special things” such as dressings and cathe-
terizations, but after each use, the nurse had to wash the gloves, put them on a rack
to dry, powder them when they were dry, and finally wrap them in linen to be
returned to central supply for autoclaving. For patients with diabetes, urine had to
be checked every 4 h for glucose levels. The nurse had to collect the urine and take
it to the treatment room where there was a metal tent to prevent the urine from splat-
tering all over the room. The urine was placed in a test tube with Benedict’s solution
and boiled, which would turn the urine a different color depending on the amount of
An Educator’s Perspective 3
sugar present. The appropriate dose of insulin would then be calculated and given.
I will never forget the smell of cooked urine!
Nursing faculty taught in the classroom, clinical setting, and laboratory. In the
Nursing Fundamentals course, the faculty not only had to teach the procedure but
also the care of the equipment, calculation of medication dosage, etc. However, in
the following courses, faculty assigned students to clinical units to provide learning
experiences for the specific courses they were taking. Assignments on the units and
work schedules were made by the head nurse, who also evaluated the student’s
clinical performance. Each course was heavy with clinical hours, and after the first
semester, students’ clinical learning experiences were in reality “service hours.”
Upon completion of the first semester students were assigned not only to the day
shift but also to the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shifts including
weekends. The total number of hours students were assigned each week varied, but the
rule seemed to be that the combined classroom and clinical hours could not exceed
40 h. Assignments were task oriented; students might be assigned direct patient care on
an acutely ill patient, or group of patients, or as “medicine” or “treatment” nurses.
On the evening shifts, night shifts, and weekends, there were no nursing faculty in the
hospital and students worked closely with the nursing staff. During their senior year,
especially on evenings, nights, and weekends, students often served as charge nurse.
Classroom teaching was scheduled during the day. Students could not be sched-
uled to work during classroom hours but those who did work evening or night shifts
were expected to be in class during the day. It was common, on the weekends when
students had no classes, to assign students “split shifts.” For example, on Saturday
and Sunday, the hours assigned often were 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to
7:00 p.m. This assured that students were there to “pass” medicines, provide baths,
and give evening care (evening care at that time consisted of a back rub; brushing of
teeth and a face wash; smoothing or change of linens; and a little conversation). After
I completed the diploma program, and because I had previously completed the basic
education courses required for the degree, I was able to take an additional course, a
newly developed public health/community course required for the Bachelor of
Science in Nursing (BSN). I was one of the first of three graduates in the newly
developed BSN program. In 1955, after graduating and passing the national licen-
sure examination, I was immediately recruited to become a faculty member at the
school. The reason for the program’s interest in me as a potential faculty member
was simple: the program was transitioning into a baccalaureate program, and it was
evident that the academic requirements for faculty would soon be the BSN. The fact
that I had absolutely no teaching or clinical experience was not a deterrent. I had the
required degree (not many nurses at that time did), so I was hired. Thinking back, I
don’t know what in the world made me feel I was prepared for this challenge!
For the first two semesters, I was assigned to work with a more experienced
faculty member and felt I was beginning to learn a little something about teaching.
I was assigned to teach very few of the classes and received little guidance about
how the class I was to teach fit in with the rest of the course. Also, the tests I was
provided had been written in previous years. I did not know this at first, so I had no
idea if the content I taught was appropriate to prepare the students for the test. There
was no real orientation to the practice of teaching in the classroom. My preparation
for clinical teaching was a directive to get the students as many procedures as pos-
sible and to be sure and check their charting.
When my more experienced faculty member resigned to pursue her master’s
degree in Texas, I became the senior faculty member for the fundamental nursing
course. I was responsible for all the classroom teaching, testing, teaching in the
laboratory, and for coordinating clinical supervision of students in the hospital. I
had someone to assist in all of this, but she had even less knowledge and experience
than I did. There was no faculty orientation or assistance, so I just taught as I had
been taught and as the faculty member before me had taught. In the classroom, I
lectured and attempted to encourage discussion among the students. It was difficult
to think about teaching strategies as I was preparing for lectures every night and just
barely staying ahead of the students.
The nursing laboratory experience was, to say the least, very interesting. The
teaching methods used were, I am sure, as old as nursing itself. Looking back on it,
I don’t know how in the world we got away with it. Today, the students would prob-
ably bring suit against us for doing invasive procedures on them! Demonstrations of
procedures were done first by the instructor. That wasn’t hard for me because I had
just been a student myself and did it in the same manner I had been taught. Following
the demonstrations, students were then expected to practice by doing a return dem-
onstration of the procedure with one of their classmates acting as the patient. They
gave each other baths, provided evening care, took vital signs, drew blood, inserted
nasogastric tubes, and gave injections (sterile saline, of course). The rationale for
this teaching approach was twofold: (1) the student needed to have experience in the
laboratory before doing procedures on patients in the hospital and (2) students
needed to empathize with how the patient felt when receiving care. All of those
return demonstrations were very time consuming for both the student and faculty
member, but it certainly motivated students to practice!
In my teaching experience during that time, my biggest challenge was creating tests.
The tests had to be created a few days before the scheduled test date so that the secretary
could type and duplicate them. As a result, the test writing process was done in a hurried
manner with no time to really look at the test as a whole or to ask another faculty mem-
ber to review it. Altogether, writing lectures and tests, doing the nursing laboratory
demonstrations and clinical assignments, supervision, and evaluations were overwhelm-
ing. Many of those early teaching experiences were difficult, frustrating, and scary.
I continued in my position as a nursing instructor for the next few years, at times
feeling more competent as a teacher in some areas but in other areas feeling inade-
quate and frustrated. After the birth of my second child in 1958, I took time away from
nursing education. During the 1970s, after our youngest child was almost ready to
start school, I decided it was time to return to nursing and, frankly, as a fairly young
couple, my husband and I needed the extra income. I recognized that I needed to
update my clinical skills and went to work in a hospital which had an orientation pro-
gram for nurses who had been out of nursing for an extended period of time. There
was a nursing shortage at the time and hospitals were doing all they could to assist
nurses in making that adjustment. The hospital also had a diploma in nursing educa-
tion program and after I had worked as a staff nurse for a short time, they recruited me
to return to nursing education. I was hesitant because I felt I needed more time to
An Educator’s Perspective 5
regain my skills, but was assured that I would be given all the support I needed. Again,
at this time, there was a real shortage of academically prepared nurses to teach and
even though I had been out of nursing for several years, I was hired. After a short time,
I again asked myself, “What in the world made you think you were really prepared to
teach?” It did not take long before I began to experience the same feelings of frustra-
tion and inadequacy that I had in my previous teaching experience.
Despite the passing of nearly two decades, teaching at this school was not all
that different from my previous teaching experience in the 1950s. In the early
1970s, students were still very young and female, could not be married without
permission, and were required to live in the dormitory. Requirements for
entrance into the program were about the same as they had been in my previous
school. The applicant had to have good grades, pass an entrance examination,
and submit reference letters. Some years there were not enough qualified appli-
cants to fill a class and other years there were more than enough. However, after
the nursing shortage became more severe in the 1970s, the number of applicants
grew every year; the entrance requirements became more and more stringent
and we began to have a lot more applicants than we had space for students. The
school had a very good reputation throughout the state and its pass rate on the
licensing examination was extremely high.
The hospital at that time had advanced—somewhat. There were recovery rooms
and acute care units, and the rooms were air-conditioned. Needles and syringes
came in various sizes and were disposable. Gloves were disposable as well, but used
only for special procedures. Plastic IV tubing was available but solutions still came
in bottles, with medications being added by the nurse, on the unit. Kits for purposes
such as catheterization and dressing changes came from central supply and had to
be cleaned and returned for autoclaving. Most of the rooms housed two patients,
though the beds, for the most part, were still the old crank-type. Overall, however,
technology and equipment were changing and advancing every year.
The minimum academic requirement for faculty was the Bachelor of Science Degree
in Nursing but the State Boards of Nursing was beginning to emphasize the need to
increase the minimum requirement. In the 1980s, due to pressure on the national and
state level, the Master of Science in Nursing degree was required for nursing faculty.
Teaching at this school in the 1980s was not all that different from my previous
teaching experience in the 1950s. Following a brief orientation to the curriculum
and school rules, I was assigned to teach with a more experienced faculty member
who, again, taught as she was taught: lecture in the classroom, laboratory demon-
strations, and heavy clinical assignments. I was assigned certain lectures to present
and again did not know that test questions were already written. My major respon-
sibilities were to assist in the lab. Because the lab was small we had to repeat ses-
sions in order to accommodate all the students. I also had a group of students in the
clinical environment for 4 days a week.
The major difference in the clinical area was that students were no longer utilized
as staff and the faculty member was always present on the unit to supervise students.
One asset of the diploma programs of the day was the quantity of clinical experi-
ence. Students had clinical for 4 days or evenings a week in every course. In the
fundamentals course, students were assigned clinical for 4 h a day, 4 days a week.
The change in the student over the 4-day period was remarkable. The first day or
two, students were nervous and anxious but by the fourth day, for the most part, they
were confident and self-assured. They were expected to be well prepared—getting
their assignments the day before, visiting their patients, reviewing the chart, and
preparing a plan of care. As the courses progressed, the hours were longer and
patient assignments became more complex. Four day clinical assignments gave
them added confidence and expertise as they progressed through the program.
The curriculum was focused around the medical model and students were now
required to complete a course in anatomy and physiology that was taught by a pro-
fessor from a nearby university. The content was the same as what he taught at the
university to the medical students.
Then, in 1978, everything began to change. The hospital moved into a new “state-
of-the-art” facility. The school of nursing moved with the hospital—with classrooms
and a laboratory in the hospital but no dormitory—and we quickly became a com-
muter school. The student body began to change and became more diverse with a
higher number of nontraditional students (25 years and older). Some of these nontra-
ditional students were married with children, some were single parents, some were
individuals seeking second careers, and, lastly, some were attracted to the profession
not because of their desire to serve, but solely because of the availability of jobs after
graduation. Most of the students held jobs outside the program and had little time for
anything they considered “busy work.” The State Boards of Nursing made it clear
that, within a designated period of time, the Master’s of Nursing Degree would be
required for nursing faculty. Therefore, most of the faculty, including myself, were
going back to school; I received my master’s degree in 1980.
In the early 1980s, as a result of the nationwide trend of moving diploma nursing
education programs from the hospital setting into institutions of higher learning, the
decision was made to establish a free standing college to offer an associate degree
(A.D.) in nursing and other allied health fields. This began a long process involving
visits to institutions offering the associate degree and accrediting agencies, choos-
ing a curriculum model, and designing nursing courses. Consultants were brought
in to critique and assist the faculty’s efforts and to ensure that everything met the
requirements of the State Boards of Nursing and accrediting agencies. Faculty were
excited about the proposed changes and the fact that they were supported and
included throughout the process. Even though faculty were stretched very thin dur-
ing this transition, developing the new A.D. program while still teaching in the
diploma program as it was being phased out, they went to great lengths to minimize
any negative impact on students. During this period, I enrolled in a program to com-
plete a doctorate in higher education and graduated in 1990.
When the transition was completed, the new A.D. Program received full approval
from the State Boards of Nursing and full accreditation from the regional accredita-
tion agency on the first try! Upon graduation, students in both the diploma and A.D.
programs scored high on the NCLEX-RN and student exit evaluations of the pro-
grams were very positive. We saw this as a tremendous achievement, made possible
because faculty felt a part of the process and were given the support and preparation
they needed.
History of the Development of Nursing Education 7
In summary, as I look back, I have seen many changes in nursing education. To

name a few:
• The movement of nursing programs into institutions of higher education
• Changes in healthcare delivery
• Changes in curriculum design to more effectively prepare students to function in
the health care environment
• An increasingly diverse and nontraditional student population
• Changes in technology, both in education and health care
• Increased requirements for approval by the State Boards of Nursing and for
accreditation by national accrediting agencies
• Changes in academic requirements for nursing faculty
However, an unfortunate constant in my observations is the lack of preparation
for nursing faculty in the basic skills of teaching. This book is designed to provide
practical, simple, and effective guidelines for the beginning nurse educator. The
book begins with a history of nursing education, information about the regulation of
nursing schools, the ever-changing student population, and the faculty role. Further
chapters contain content relating to principles of teaching and learning, classroom
teaching, teaching in the clinical environment, simulation, and online teaching.
Each chapter contains basic information related to the chapter content, followed by
scenarios which illustrate a variety of teaching situations which includes potential
actions and rationale for each action.
History of the Development of Nursing Education
The first nurse training programs in the USA were established in 1872. Women’s
Hospital in Philadelphia and New England Hospital for Women and Children were
nurse training programs staffed with women physicians who sought quality nursing
care (Kalisch & Kalisch, 2004). Three more nurse training programs supported by
hospitals opened in 1873. Bellevue Hospital Training School in New York,
Connecticut Training School in New Haven Hospital, and Boston Training School
in Massachusetts General Hospital opened with the support of laywomen. The
majority of schools established before the 1900s were on either the east or west
coast, with just a few training schools elsewhere in the country (Kalisch & Kalisch,
2004). By 1900, 490 nurse training schools had been established in the USA. Many
of these schools were specifically created to care for patients with the prevalent ill-
nesses of the time, such as mental illness and tuberculosis (Kalisch & Kalisch,
2004). Hospital administrators found that it was more economical to have an inter-
nal nurse training program than hiring nurses from outside the institution. In gen-
eral, students worked 12-h days and many of their classes were canceled when their
services were needed within the hospital.
Nursing leaders soon recognized the need to establish standards for college and
university nursing faculty programs. In 1919, the Rockefeller Foundation funded
The Committee for the Study of Nursing Education to study nursing education in
the USA. The committee charged Josephine Goldmark, a social worker, to lead the
investigation and it resulted in the publication of Goldmark Report in 1923. The
committee’s original mandate was to “examine the proper training of public health
nurses” (Committee for the Study of Nursing Education, 1923, p. 7). However, the
focus broadened to research “the entire problem of nursing and of nursing educa-
tion” (Committee for the Study of Nursing Education, 1923, p. 7). The report high-
lighted the fact that other professions, like medicine and law, had moved away from
an apprenticeship model. In contrast, nursing had been directed by “organizations
created and maintained for the care of disease, rather than for professional educa-
tion” (Committee for the Study of Nursing Education, 1923, p. 17). The report’s
recommendations included the establishment of a university-based school of nurs-
ing with a separate governing board and financing separate from hospitals. University
education also was recommended for future nursing educators. The report called for
the standardization of nursing education and the extrication of nursing education
from American hospitals (Ruby, 1999).
The Society of Superintendents of Training Schools, which later became the
National League of Nurse Education (NLNE), attempted to establish a standard cur-
riculum for nursing programs. The league believed the standardization of curricu-
lum would ensure that nurses were taught similarly and to a high standard in all
schools of nursing (Committee on Curriculum of the National League of Nursing
Education, 1937, p. 4). The Standard Curriculum for Nursing Schools was pub-
lished in 1917 by the Education Committee of the NLNE under the leadership of
Adelaide Nutting. The curriculum was divided into two major sections. The first
section outlined the physical facilities, financial resources, and administrative con-
trol of the schools. This section also addressed the qualifications of the students and
faculty, guidelines for student life, and recommended methods of teaching. The
second section was a detailed curriculum plan with objectives, content, methods,
resources, and operational schedules (Education Committee of the National League
for Nursing Education, 1917). However, the standard curriculum was merely a
guideline and not adopted in its entirety by all nursing schools.
After the Goldmark Report of 1923, two revisions were made to the original cur-
riculum publication and it was retitled A Curriculum Guide for Schools of Nursing.
The final revision in 1937 identified “well-supported suggestions and recommenda-
tions in relations to desirable objectives, sources, content, methods, and organiza-
tions” (Committee on Curriculum of the National League of Nursing Education,
1937, p. 10). The authors sought to provide a framework for schools of nursing, and
A Curriculum Guide for Schools of Nursing was intended as a handbook to be used
by an individual school in building its own curriculum. The authors believed nurs-
ing education should be in harmony with the principles and methods of modern
science (Committee on Curriculum of the National League of Nursing Education,
1937). This was a chalenging necessity due to the rapid changes in the health care,
science, and social arenas.
Another famous report on nursing education was published in 1948. Ester Lucille
Brown’s report entitled Nursing for the Future recommended that schools of nurs-
Regulation of Nursing Schools 9
ing be placed in colleges and universities, similar to the Goldmark Report (Brown,
1948). The Brown Report also supported the release of nursing education from
hospitals and a standard curriculum (Ruby, 1999).
Educational Pathways to Become an RN
Today, there are three educational pathways to become a registered nurse in the
USA: the Associate Degree in Nursing (ADN), Associate of Science in Nursing
(ASN), and Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN). Graduates of all the pathways
are eligible to take the NCLEX-RN. Typically, ADN or diploma programs are
approximately 3 years in length and mimic the original hospital-based training pro-
grams (AARP, 2010; Institute of Medicine, 2011). The Associate of Science in
Nursing [ASN] program originated following the end of World War II in 1945.
Advances in health care and dramatic increases in the number of new hospitals from
the Hill-Burton Act of 1946 increased the demand for nurses and a shortage of hos-
pital nurses ensured (Orsolini-Hain & Waters, 2009). In response, a 2-year nursing
program was created and was offered at junior and community colleges. Graduating
students received an ASN and qualified to test for licensure as a registered nurse
(RN) (Matthias, 2010). Currently, ASN programs require 2 years of nursing instruc-
tion and are typically offered by community colleges (AARP, 2010; Institute of
Medicine, 2011).
The Goldmark Report of 1923 and the Brown Report of 1948 encouraged col-
leges and universities to cultivate baccalaureate nursing programs in institutions of
higher education. The number of such programs has grown steadily since that time
(Orsolini-Hain & Waters, 2009). Currently, about 55 % of the American RN work-
force holds a bachelor’s or higher degree (Health Resources and Services
Administration [HRSA], 2013). Differentiation of graduate competencies among
the entry-level education programs—ADN, ASN, and BSN—may exist, but differ-
entiation of nursing practice among entry-level prepared RNs do not (Matthias,
2010).
Regulation of Nursing Schools
The regulatory body mandated to oversee and approve education in each state and
territory in the USA is the State Boards of Nursing (SBON) (NCSBN, 2004). Each
SBON either approves or accredits nurse education program in schools and univer-
sities (NCSBN). SBON program approval/accreditation is for the purpose of pro-
tecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public (NCSBN). Each state or territory
has a Nurse Practice Act (NPA) enacted by the state legislature. The Boards develop
rules and regulations to clarify aspects of the NPA, including the establishment of
standards for pre-licensure education. These standards vary from state to state on
issues such as required curricular content, types and number of clinical experiences,
faculty qualifications, and ratios of students to faculty members (Glasgow,
Niederhauser, Dunphy, & Mainous, 2010). The SBNs evaluate nursing schools by
comparing the NCLEX-RN pass rate of the school to the national average.
National nursing accreditation is a voluntary, nongovernmental peer-review pro-
cess to assure that schools of nursing are meeting standards (NCSBN, 2004). There
are two major nationally recognized accreditation agencies for nursing programs.
The AACN developed the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education [CCNE] in
1998 and accredits baccalaureate and graduate degree including doctorate of nurs-
ing practice programs (AACN, 2014). The National League of Nursing Accreditation
Committee [NLNAC], formed in 1996, accredits diploma, associate, and baccalau-
reate programs. As a result of the continued demand for accreditation services, the
NLNAC changed its name to the Accreditation Commission for Education in
Nursing or ACEN in April 2013 (ACEN, 2013). “The purpose of the ACEN is to
provide specialized accreditation for programs of nursing education, both postsec-
ondary and higher degree, which offer either a certificate, a diploma, or a recog-
nized professional degree (clinical doctorate, master’s, baccalaureate, associate,
diploma, and practical)” (ACEN, 2013, p. 1). Both agencies require a self-study for
accreditation, focusing on identified standards set by each accrediting agency. Both
agencies use NCLEX-RN pass rates as one measure for approval in the accredita-
tion process. In most cases, schools follow the accreditation process every 10 years.
NCLEX-RN History
Nursing has the potential to cause harm to the public if practiced by unprepared or
incompetent practitioners. Licensure is a method put into place to assure the public
that a nurse has obtained the necessary skills to practice in each state or territory in
the USA An individual qualifies for licensure by completing a nursing program and
by passing the NCLEX-RN examination (NCSBN, 2016).
The test plan of the NCLEX-RN is a set of content categories that define nursing
actions and competencies across all settings for all clients (NCSBN, 2016). The
NCLEX-RN is developed and revised by NCSBN based on extensive analysis of
the practice requirements of an RN (NCSBN, 2013). The NCLEX-RN test plan is
categorized by the client needs presented in Table 1.1. This table also identifies the
percentage of items on the examination from each of the categories and subcatego-
ries for the 2016 NCLEX-RN test plan.
The NCLEX-RN examination uses a variety of types of questions, including mul-
tiple response, multiple choice, fill in the blank items, hot spot items (where the
candidate needs to locate an anatomical point on a diagram or body), ordered
response items, chart and graph items, and items that use computer technology
(Lavin & Rosario-Sim, 2013). NCLEX-RN test items are written at a higher level of
thinking in order to test the applicant’s ability to process complex patient care issues.
Bloom’s taxonomy is a way to categorize the hierarchy of cognitive processes using
NCLEX-RN History 11
Table 1.1 2016 NCLEX-RN examination test plan areas and percentage of items
Percentage of items from each category/
Client needs subcategory
Safe and effective care environment
Management of care 17–23 %
Safety and infection control 9–15 %
Health promotion and maintenance 6–12 %
Psychosocial integrity 6–12 %
Physiological integrity
Basic care and comfort 6–12 %
Pharmacological and parenteral therapies 12–18 %
Reduction of risk potential 9–15 %
Physiological adaptation 11–17 %
Source: NCSBN, 2016. NCLEX-RN test plan. Retrieved from https://www.ncsbn.org/RN_Test_
Plan_2016_Final.pdf
Reprinted with permission from National Council of State Boards of Nursing
a leveled approach. The use of Bloom’s taxonomy is considered the “gold standard
and hallmark of behavioral objectives and is divided into six levels of learning:
recall, grasp, apply, analyze, synthesize, and judge” (Cannon & Boswell, 2012,
p. 140). Diagram 1.1 identifies the levels included in Bloom’s Taxonomy. The lowest
level identifies where basic knowledge/recall is assessed. The NCLEX-RN uses
questions developed at the application and analysis levels which require more com-
plex thought processing than simply knowledge or comprehension (NCSBN, 2013).
Prior to 1986, each SBON administered their own nursing examination. Often
referred to as the Board exam, the number of questions a student completed ranged
from 350 questions to 1200 depending on the SBON. The NCSBN began to admin-
ister the exams for all SBON in the 1970s, streamlining the exam to a few hundred
questions.
In 1986, the NCSBN Board of Directors investigated the use of new technology
to administer the NCLEX-RN exam. Computer Adaptive Testing, or CAT
NCLEX-RN, allowed the examination to be given at any time, shortened the exami-
nation length, and provided greater security of test items (NCSBN, 2016). During
the CAT NCLEX-RN examination, the computer constantly calculates an ability
estimate of each question, matching the question to the test plan requirements. The
candidate receives questions until the computer determines that the minimum
amount of items has been achieved and the computer determines with 95 % cer-
tainty that the candidate represents safe entry-level competence (NCSBN, 2013). To
identify whether a candidate is above or below the passing standard, the computer
needs the current ability estimate of the candidate, the precision of the estimate, and
the passing standard. Today, each candidate answers a minimum of 75 and a maxi-
mum of 265 questions using the CAT NCLEX-RN.
Every 3 years the NCSBN administers a practice analysis survey. The survey is
sent to recent nursing graduates, schools of nursing, and hospitals and asks partici-
pants to identify current trends in nursing practice. The results of this practice analy-
sis inform the content tested on the NCLEX-RN. Also included in the survey are
demographics about candidates who successfully passed the NCLEX-RN. Candidates
who successfully passed the NCLEX-RN examination from October 1, 2013
through March 31, 2014 were included in the last practice analysis study reported in
2015. Of the respondents who completed the study, the majority (87.6 %) reported
were female. The age of respondent nurses averaged 31.6 years (SD 8.8 years)
(NCSBN, 2015). The respondents were 74.2 % White, 10.5 % African American,
6.1 % Hispanic, 4.1 % Asian, and 1.0 % Asian Indian (NCSBN, 2015). An associate
degree (54.7 %) was the most common educational preparation for initial RN licen-
sure. The second most frequent response was the baccalaureate degree (40.4 %)
(NCSBN, 2015). The majority (72.0 %) of newly licensed RNs in this study reported
working in hospitals. The next largest group, of around 15 %, reported working in
long-term care while just fewer than 10 % reported working in community-based
settings (NCSBN, 2015).
Student Population
The goal of nursing education is to prepare nurses to deliver safe, quality patient
care to meet diverse patient needs, to function as leaders, and to advance science
that benefits patients (IOM, 2011). The U.S. healthcare system and practice envi-
ronment are constantly changing. These changes reflect not only the diversity of the
patient population but also the acuity of patients. Newer technologies such as elec-
tronic health records present both challenges and opportunities to nursing students,
requiring skills in quickly adapting to changing environments. Similarly, nursing
education must change and adapt by adjusting the learning environment.
Nursing education has to change to keep up with the diversity of the patient care
needs and the healthcare environment. As identified from the practice analysis study,
the nursing student population is changing. There are more males entering the profes-
sion. The average age of the nursing student is 31.6 years which suggests that nursing
may be considered a career later in life (NCSBN, 2015). The change from a young
female student to an older male student may present unique challenges to newer nurs-
ing faculty, challenges for which they lack sufficient knowledge and experience.
Besides age and gender, other student characteristics may affect students in the nurs-
ing program and faculty should be prepared to handle the challenges. Ethnicity and
race, language, prior educational experience, family education experience, and prior
work experience can all affect the nursing student experience (Jeffreys, 2012).
Admission and retention is yet another area that impacts nursing education.
Many scholarly articles identify admission requirements necessary for higher edu-
cation institutions and because nursing schools are housed in these institutions, they
are impacted. Some requirements for admission to nursing schools include American
College Test (ACT), Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), and high school grade point
average (GPA). Other admission considerations may include an exam for English as
Faculty Role 13
a second language, prerequisites in science or other courses, and nationally stan-

dardized admission assessment examinations.
After admission to a nursing school, retaining students and graduating them are
important. There are a variety of reasons, identified from the nursing literature, that
a student may withdraw or leave a nursing program. Student success such as passing
a course or clinical is just one factor. Other factors identify cultural values and
beliefs, self-efficacy, and motivation as challenges that impact a student to complete
a nursing program (Jeffreys, 2012). The ability to study, the class hours and schedule,
financial issues, and other academic services available can also impact retention
(Jeffreys, 2012). Nursing programs should have a committee to review why students
leave and have a process in place to keep retention high. Some strategies to keep
retention high include early identification of high-risk students, development of strat-
egies to facilitate success, and evaluation of the developed program (Jeffreys, 2012).
High stakes testing has been used in nursing education for several years. A high
stakes test is any test that makes an important decision about a student’s achieve-
ment. Two major providers of high stakes testing in nursing are Assessment
Technologies Institute (ATI) and Higher Education Systems Incorporated (HESI).
These standardized, nationally normalized examinations assess readiness of stu-
dents and have been cited in the literature as a strategy and predictor of outcomes on
NCLEX-RN (Reinhardt, Keller, Summers, & Schultz, 2012). Both companies have
linked NCLEX-RN success with either nursing content specific standardized exams
and/or the comprehensive examination and have published research. Some schools
of nursing have progression policies in place to dismiss a student for failure on one
of these standardized examinations. It is imperative for any nurse educator to review
the admission and progression policies regarding the use of high stakes testing in his
or her nursing program and curriculum.
Faculty Role
The role of faculty members in nursing education has changed. Since the 1950s,
SBN have encouraged advanced degrees for faculty teaching in schools of nursing.
According to a Special Survey on Vacant Faculty Positions released by AACN in
2015, there was a national nurse faculty vacancy rate of 7.1 %. Most of the vacancies
(90.7 %) were faculty positions requiring or preferring a doctoral degree. The top
reasons cited by schools having difficulty finding faculty were insufficient funds to
hire new faculty (65.4 %) and unwillingness of administration to commit to full time
additional full time positions (56.5 %). AACN (2015a, 2015b) reported that faculty
shortages at nursing schools across the country are limiting student capacity.
Other current challenges for faculty involve the development of the knowledge
and skills necessary to teach nursing students. The National League of Nursing
(NLN) has developed nurse educator competencies for those faculty teaching in
nurse educator tracks. The nurse educator master programs have been replaced by
the newer role of the master prepared nurse practitioner programs. The NLN has a
certification for nurse faculty who aspire to promote excellence in the advanced
speciality role of the academic nurse educator. The Certified Nurse Educator (CNE)
is a mark of professionalism in nursing education. More information regarding this
certification can be obtained from http://www.nln.org/professional-development-
programs/Certification-for-Nurse-Educators.
Conclusion
Nursing education has many factors impacting its sustainability in higher education.
Nursing curricula are influenced by higher education standards as well as the
dynamic and changing healthcare environment. Student characteristics also chal-
lenge educators to reevaluate educational practices to ensure that schools are gradu-
ating students that are prepared to practice in a complex healthcare environment.
Faculty are also challenged to meet state and national standards and to educate in a
manner that will facilitate learning of a diverse student population. The challenges
are great. However, with knowledge and practice, a new educator can become pro-
ficient in meeting the demands of this nursing role.
References
AARP. (2010). Providers of nursing care: Numbers, preparation/training and roles: A fact sheet.
Retrieved March 7, 2016, from http://campaignforaction.org/sites/default/files/Fact_Sheet_
Providers_NursingCare_0.pdf.
Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing. (2013). Accreditation manual. Retrieved
March 7, 2016, from http://www.acenursing.org/accreditation-manual/.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2008). Essentials of baccalaureate education for
professional nursing practice. Retrieved March 7, 2016, from https://www.aacn.nche.edu/
education-resources/baccessentials08.pdf.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2014). CCNE accreditation. Retrieved March 7,
2016, from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/ccne-accreditation.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2015a). Nursing shortage faculty fact sheet. Retrieved
March 7, 2016, from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/FacultyShortageFS.pdf.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2015b). Special survey on vacant faculty positions
for Academic year 2015–2016. Retrieved March 7, 2016, from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/
leading-initiatives/research-data/vacancy15.pdf.
Brown, E. L. (1948). Nursing for the future. New York: Russell Sage.
Cannon, S., & Boswell, C. (2012). Evidenced-based teaching in nursing: A foundation for educa-
tors. Ontario, Canada: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Committee for the Study of Nursing Education. (1923). Nursing and nursing education in the
United States. New York: The MacMillan Company.
Committee on Curriculum of the National League of Nursing Education. (1937). A curriculum guide
for schools of nursing. New York: National League of Nursing Education.
Education Committee of the National League for Nursing Education. (1917). Standard curriculum
for nursing schools. New York: National League of Nursing Education.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Full Chapter Nurse Educator S Guide To Best Teaching Practice A Case Based Approach 1St Edition Keeley C Harmon PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Full Chapter Nurse Educator S Guide To Best Teaching Practice A Case Based Approach 1St Edition Keeley C Harmon PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Chapter Nurse Educator S Guide To Best Teaching Practice A Case Based Approach 1St Edition Keeley C Harmon PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nurse Educator s Guide to Best

Teaching Practice A Case Based

Pathology of Graft vs Host Disease A Case Based

A Case-Based Approach to Emergency Psychiatry 1st

Evidence Based Critical Care A Case Study Approach 1st

The Educator s Guide to Texas School Law Ninth Edition

Management of Lymphomas A Case Based Approach 1st

PET/MR Imaging : A Case-Based Approach 1st Edition

Spine imaging : a case-based guide to imaging and

Psychologizing A Personal Practice Based Approach to

Nurse Educator’s Guide

ISBN 978-3-319-42537-5 ISBN 978-3-319-42539-9 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016948212

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

graduates who can function safely and competently in an ever-changing healthcare

Baton Rouge, LA, USA Keeley C. Harmon, PhD, RN

1 Issues and Trends in Nursing Education ................................................ 1

3 Classroom Teaching .................................................................................. 27

Appendix A: Example Course Syllabus ........................................................ 111

Appendix B: Program Outcomes................................................................... 113

Appendix C: Exam Blueprint ........................................................................ 115

Appendix D: Example Case Study ................................................................ 117

Appendix E: Example Welcome Letter ......................................................... 119

Appendix F: Key Discussion Points During Advising ................................. 121

Appendix G: Clinical Organization Tool ...................................................... 123

Appendix H: Example of Clinical Syllabus .................................................. 125

Appendix I: Abbreviated Second Patient Form ........................................... 129

Appendix J: Example of a Clinical Contract................................................ 131

Appendix K: Sample Action Plan .................................................................. 133

Appendix L: Sample of Debriefing Questions for Simulation .................... 135

Index ................................................................................................................. 137

Joe Ann Clark

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

In summary, as I look back, I have seen many changes in nursing education. To

History of the Development of Nursing Education

Educational Pathways to Become an RN

Regulation of Nursing Schools

a second language, prerequisites in science or other courses, and nationally stan-

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Section 4. Information about Donations to