Theresa M. Valiga

Doctoral Programs in Nursing: Philosophy, Curricula, and Program Requirements

This study examined the philosophy, curricula, and program requirements of doctoral nursing programs in the United States. Forty-four doctoral nursing programs were solicited by mail and information about doctoral nursing programs was obtained. Of the programs, 31 offer the doctor of philosophy degree, 11 the doctor of nursing science degree, and 1 the doctor of education degree. Program philosophies could not be distinguished from one another. Eighteen doctoral programs offered advanced clinical courses and 22 programs focused on role preparation; 16 offered both clinical and role preparation. There was much variation in credit requirements, but the standard program was 60 credits in length, with 48 credits in nursing and 12 credits in cognates and electives. Approximately half the required credits focused on research. The similarity in the curricula of doctoral programs is striking. Discipline-specific values may be strong and account for the congruence in the types of curricula found in this study. Continued focus on research preparation, with varying degrees of emphasis on clinical or role development, is expected. The dominance of the doctoral degree as the terminal degree for nursing is likely to continue.

Leadership for the future

Leaders are responsible for guiding others through a future that may be anticipated but is ultimately unknown. In addition, leaders are responsible for creating a positive future. If nurse leaders are to be successful in this process, they would benefit from knowing trends that are projected for the future, reflecting on the kinds of skills that are needed to meet the challenges presented by those trends, and proposing strategies that can be used for effective leadership in our uncertain future.

Audio Feedback for Student Writing in Online Nursing Courses: Exploring Student and Instructor Reactions

Because scientific writing is an essential skill for advanced practice nurses, it is an important component of graduate education. Faculty typically provide written feedback about student writing, but this may not be the most effective choice for the distance-learning environment. This exploratory pilot studys aim was to compare spoken, recorded feedback with written feedback in three areas: which approach do students perceive as providing more useful guidance; which approach helps students feel more connected to the course; and which approach do instructors prefer? Students enrolled in an evidence-based practice graduate-level course received asynchronous audio feedback on their written assignments instead of the written feedback they received in other courses. Results from a survey completed by 30 students at completion of the course suggest a strong preference for audio feedback. This pilot study suggests that audio feedback may be preferable to written comments for distance learning courses.

Nursing Education Trends: Future Implications and Predictions

This article examines current trends in nursing education and proposes numerous transformations needed to ensure that programs are relevant, fully engage learners, reflect evidence-based teaching practices, and are innovative. Such program characteristics are essential if we are to graduate nurses who can practice effectively in todays complex, ambiguous, ever-changing health care environments and who are prepared to practice in and, indeed, shape tomorrows unknown practice environments.

How are We Preparing Nurse Leaders?: A Study of Baccalaureate Curricula

What is leadership? Is it different from management? If so, how is it different? This study was designed to achieve several purposes: to clarify the conceptual differences between leadership and management; to identify the leadership/management concept included in baccalaureate programs in nursing; and compare and contrast the program content with the conceptual definitions. A review of eight program components contained in the National League for Nursing Self-Study Reports of 10 accredited programs in the mid-Atlantic region was conducted to achieve these purposes. This analysis revealed that despite their conceptual differences, nursing faculty generally use leadership and management interchangeably, and the emphasis in most programs is on management training rather than leadership development.

Creative educational strategies for health promotion.

The dramatic changes in health care delivery present challenges to nurses in practice and to the educators who must prepare professional nurses for the uncertain world of tomorrows managed care environment. In light of the increased emphasis on health promotion occurring with current changes in health care, the article proposes numerous creative strategies that nurse educators can use to prepare students to fulfill their health promotion responsibilities effectively. The concepts of health promotion and creativity are examined, and teaching approaches needed to facilitate community-based, health promotion-focused activities are presented. Specific strategies, particularly clinical teaching/learning opportunities, are suggested.

Attending to affective domain learning: essential to prepare the kind of graduates the public needs.

Nurse educators seem to be increasingly caught in the content coverage web. Knowledge continues to explode at an alarming rate, technological advances seem to spiral out of control, and the roles assumed by nurses are increasingly complex. However, the answer to these challenges is not to add more content to the curriculum or to expect students to read and absorb the information contained on thousands of textbook pages. The answer, in my opinion, is to focus more on affective domain learning. Undoubtedly, students need to be able to remember information, as well as apply and evaluate it. They also need to be competent and confi dent when performing psychomotor skills. Therefore, one can argue that our nursing programs are quite successful in helping students achieve these goals—but at what price? When we devote extensive—and sometimes all—class time to covering content and focusing curriculum discussions more on what they need to know than on who they need to become, we are undermining the opportunity to prepare our students to be the leaders, scholars, perpetual learners, and active members of the profession our future and the public need them to be. To help them become those leaders and scholars, our educational systems must focus more on the development of values, so students form strong identities and learn to expect more of themselves. Affective domain learning has to do with values, beliefs, humility, and personal insight. Learning in this domain occurs when students are challenged to (a) think deeply and critically about what guides their actions and how they relate to others, (b) refl ect on their values, and (c) make conscious decisions about the kind of individuals they want to be in this world. When students can explain cultural differences, we conclude that they are culturally sensitive. However, knowing cognitively that people are different is not the same as treating people in ways that respect those differences. The former is cognitive learning, whereas the latter is affective learning. When students can outline the roles of a leader, we conclude that they will fulfi ll those roles upon graduation. However, knowing what leaders are supposed to do is not the same as taking the risk to articulate a vision of a better way to provide care, presenting proposals for change to administrators, and inspiring peers to join in and make important changes happen. For students and graduates to take action and right a wrong, they must value doing right over taking a risk. For students and graduates to make a difference as professionals, they must value the importance of participation over sitting back and letting others do the diffi cult work. For students and graduates to constantly challenge the way things are done, they must value inquisitiveness and the importance of bringing a scholarly perspective to their roles as nurses. This list can go on and on. The point is that we will not have the leaders, risk takers, scholars, involved professionals, and true lifelong learners we need in nursing if we do not invest signifi cant time and effort in facilitating affective domain learning. This is not indoctrination—it is personal insight. It is not cloning students in our own image—it is helping students to develop holistically and come into their own. And it is not sacrifi cing attention to cognitive and psychomotor domain learning—it is bringing all three domains into better balance. Nurse educators are encouraged to take on the challenge of attending more to affective domain learning and identity formation in students. Cut back on multiple choice tests and have students do more refl ective papers; even have them read and comment on peers’ papers. Cut back on presentations of content, and challenge students to share what they have learned about themselves. Cut back on assigning thousands of pages of reading in the textbook, and ask students to read and refl ect on a poem, a novel, a biography, or a song. We might be amazed at how much they truly learn about themselves, others, and the material under study from assignments such as these. By taking such risks, we are more likely to graduate individuals who see their nursing role as much more than a caregiver whose practice ends when the workday is done. We will graduate individuals who see their nursing role—and their career—as an ever-evolving one that requires them to be leaders, scholars, and perpetual learners. It will not be easy, but if we truly value who our students become as a result of their educational experiences, then we must create ways to attend effectively to affective domain learnin g.

Do Schools of Nursing Truly Value Excellence in Teaching? Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Academic institutions exist for many purposes—preparing future leaders, challenging ideas and practices, generating new knowledge, and preparing individuals for careers, among others—but their primary purpose is to educate, facilitate learning, and promote personal and professional development. To accomplish these goals, learners need to be challenged to reflect on (and perhaps reconsider) their values and beliefs, struggle with the notion that there are often more questions than answers, judge the value of ideas and information they encounter, and engage in the hard work of thinking and learning. To help learners accomplish the goals noted above, educators need to have solid grounding in the science and art of teaching, knowing how to teach, as well as what to teach. However, at the postsecondary level, expectations related to the preparation of faculty as educators are rare. Indeed, it seems that what is required is an advanced degree and some level of expertise in one’s field, whether that be the history of World War II, art, languages, or nursing practice. If one were to examine the Web sites of many institutions of higher learning, one is likely to find mention of excellence in teaching, a focus on student learning and development, and the importance of the teacher–student relationship. However, when one looks for indications—at the institutional, national, or societal level— of what is done to achieve excellence in teaching, the findings are limited. Consider the following: