Learning for Practice: A Key to Quality BSN Curriculum Benchmarks

Purpose: The study sought to determine the quality of the KCN BSN curriculum through the analysis of the curriculum benchmarks. 

The stakeholder observations of and concerns about the Kamuzu College of Nursing (KCN) graduate nurses’ low levels of clinical performance in practice settings reflects on the  quality of curriculum benchmarks. Thus, may be the BSN curriculum bench marks fail to inform frameworks for the teaching and learning for practice among the student nurses.  Learning for practice is a process that results from deep learning when concrete learning experiences lead to new learning experiences in clinical areas.  Deep learning relates to student- centeredness in curriculum benchmarks in an effort to promote focus on learner interest, learning responsibility, the use of diverse teaching strategies and learning styles, self-directedness and self –assessment

Methods:

A curriculum evaluation survey in a two–phased, cross sectional, sequential explanatory mixed research design was used to evaluate the BSN curriculum benchmarks through a curriculum rubric.  A total of 21 subjects’ syllabi that had nursing content were purposively selected from 35 subject syllabi of the BSN curriculum.  Quality components were evaluated on a rating scale 1 to 3.  The curriculum rubric comprised a high content validity index as the mean I-CVI was 0.78 and the S-CVIWAS 0.96.  Eight (n=8) nursing experts out of the ten who were invited to participate completed the evaluation rubrics. All the responses were quantified on Excel, and then entered into SPSS version 16.0 where descriptive statistics were run for frequencies, mean and standard deviation.

Results:

The curriculum evaluation portrays that quality standards of the processes and tools on the KCN BSN curriculum are partially met in the teaching and learning processes. Major benchmarks are not fully met to influence quality learning 62.5% of the participants indicated the curriculum partially provided for students self-assessments and 25% were of the opinion that the curriculum does not provide for self-assessment.   Despite having outcomes linked to assessment strategies and the curriculum taking into account the regulatory hallmarks the partial standards imparts on deep learning in the BSN programme to influence learning for practice.

Conclusion:

The partial standards on curriculum benchmarks are factors that may impact on learning for practice as expected professional outcomes.  There is need to change the way teaching tasks are deployed at KCN.  The BSN curriculum’s benchmarks should specifically focus on student-centeredness and guided by an integrative teaching function to yield effective learning results. Furthermore, there is need to review the BSN curriculum benchmarks to facilitate the integration of Socratic and facilitative teaching strategies and approaches to promote deep learning for practice.