![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Learning Objective 1: Outline the events that unfolded in the meeting that resulted in the initial draft of a statewide standardized practical and associate degree nursing curriculum.
Learning Objective 2: Describe the power and knowledge implications of Nursing Education Advisory Committee’s three-day retreat to draft Alabama’s Statewide Standardized Nursing Curriculum.
The purpose of this case study was to describe how the Alabama Community College System (ACCS) standardized the practical nursing and associate degree nursing curriculum of all the nursing programs within the system. The research question was: “How did the ACCS develop its standardized nursing curriculum?” The sub questions were, “who were the key players in the process?”, “Who had the positions of power and dominance, and who did not?”, “Who were included and who were excluded in the process?”, “What were the reasons for inclusion and exclusion?”, and “What were the contextual elements that influenced the development of the curriculum?”
The data collected was aggregated in categories (Stake, 1995), and further categorized into time-ordered displays. Content analysis (Merriam, 1998) of the data revealed emergent themes. The data was subjected to pattern-matching (Yin, 2003) with extant theories. The themes were compared to Foucault’s (1977) theories of knowledge and power. A timeline was created, story lines revealed the following themes inherent in the curriculum development process: speed and stealth, uncertainty, lack of power, lack of knowledge and lack of choice.
The participants’ group dynamics matched with Tuckman’s (1965) group development stages of Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. Comparison to a published curriculum development process model (Iwasiw, Goldenberg & Andrusyszyn, 2005) revealed that the actual curriculum development began with little preparation – the first eight stages in the model were bypassed. The program philosophy was created after the content was developed, and did not mesh with the curriculum. Power and knowledge relationships shifted from the administration to the faculty.
The data collected was aggregated in categories (Stake, 1995), and further categorized into time-ordered displays. Content analysis (Merriam, 1998) of the data revealed emergent themes. The data was subjected to pattern-matching (Yin, 2003) with extant theories. The themes were compared to Foucault’s (1977) theories of knowledge and power. A timeline was created, story lines revealed the following themes inherent in the curriculum development process: speed and stealth, uncertainty, lack of power, lack of knowledge and lack of choice.
The participants’ group dynamics matched with Tuckman’s (1965) group development stages of Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. Comparison to a published curriculum development process model (Iwasiw, Goldenberg & Andrusyszyn, 2005) revealed that the actual curriculum development began with little preparation – the first eight stages in the model were bypassed. The program philosophy was created after the content was developed, and did not mesh with the curriculum. Power and knowledge relationships shifted from the administration to the faculty.