Empowering Students and Faculty to Close Research Knowledge Gaps

Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to share two course designs that helped faculty who are teaching research to close the nursing research knowledge gap between students in two baccalaureate nursing tracks and from different generations. Traditional and accelerated-track or 2^ndbaccalaureate degree nursing students enter academic institutions with different knowledge background. The traditional (TBSN) students who are novice to academic learning will need to master concepts that are often abstract and challenging, especially when it pertains to research classes. Many of the TBSN students are attending college after a high school graduation (generation Y, and Z); the others are non-traditional (minority, or first-time college attendee, generation X and “Baby Boomers”) or professionals perusing different career. In comparison, the accelerated (ABSN) students have spent four years in higher education, have already obtained a baccalaureate degree, and have been exposed to research terminology. Therefore, the students in the accelerated tracks have a head start in learning about nursing research and Evidence-Based Practice. The faculty teaching research courses often face the challenge to select learning objectives that will bridge the research learning gap between traditional and accelerated-track nursing students. Nurses in the contemporary healthcare are expected to show proficiency in using nursing research for best practice.

Methods: Comparative analysis of traditional (face-to-face classroom) and online environments based on external standardized testing. Design: 15-week interactive and innovative lecture content, practice sessions, unit tests, and external standardized exam. The external standardized exam was used as an independent, objective tool to measure the knowledge gap in both tracks.

Sample: 16 TBSN and 22 ABSN students. Both were exposed to the same lecture material and testing. The traditional classroom has included creative practice sessions, poster presentation, and in-class active learning activities. The online class has included discussion forums, independent practice, and video lectures and virtual presentation.

Results: The mean values of the external standardized testing grades were not statistically different for the two programs. ABSN µ=86.82, SD=4.37, minimum value= 79.5, maximum value=94.5. For the TBSN µ=87.53, SD=4.49, minimum value=79, maximum value=95. The results suggested that that both tracks have reached similar levels of knowledge despite the different educational background and knowledge acquisition related to research concepts.

Conclusion: The results of this comparative analysis generate a significant, multinational impact on the ways of how faculty approach teaching nursing research around the world for different educational backgrounds. TBSN students benefit from in-class face-to-face lecturing and hands on activities. The ABSN students enjoy more independent learning and content with practical implications. The traditional classroom supports active learning of abstract concepts and therefore, it is a helpful environment in closing the nursing research knowledge gap for the TBSN population. An interesting conclusion of the comparative analysis is that the TBSN students had higher mean and maximum value in comparison with the ABSN students. This conclusion supports the recommendation of teaching nursing research in a face-to-face classroom. The study conclusions have a serious impact on nursing education science as it shows a beneficial way of teaching nursing education theory development pertinent to research.