Abstract
Formal pairing of student nurses to work collaboratively on one patient assignment is a strategy for improving the quality and efficiency of clinical instruction while better utilizing the limited resources at clinical agencies. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the student nurse and patient experiences of collaborative learning when peer dyads are used in clinical nursing education. Interviews were conducted with 11 students and 9 patients. Students described the process of collaborative learning as information sharing, cross-checking when making clinical decisions, and group processing when assessing the outcomes of nursing interventions. Positive outcomes reported by students and patients included reduced student anxiety, increased confidence and task efficiency. Students’ primary concern was reduced opportunity to perform hands-on skills which had to be negotiated within each dyad. Meeting the present and future challenges of educating nurses will require innovative models of clinical instruction such as collaborative learning using student peer dyads.
References
Aston, L., & Molassiotis, A. (2003). Supervising and supporting student nurses in clinical placements: The peer support initiative. Nurse Education Today, 23(3), 202–210.10.1016/S0260-6917(02)00215-0Search in Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Benner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V., & Day, L. (2010). Educating nurses: A call for radical transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar
Bos, S. (1998). Perceived benefits of peer leadership as described by junior baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education, 37(4), 189–191.10.3928/0148-4834-19980401-13Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Forbes, M., O., & Hickey, M. T. (2009). Curriculum reform in baccalaureate nursing education: Review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 6(1), 1–16. doi:10.2202/1548–923X.1797Search in Google Scholar
Goldsmith, M., Stewart, L., & Ferguson, L. (2006). Peer learning partnership: An innovative strategy to enhance skill acquisition in nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 26(2), 123–130. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2005.08.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Harmer, B. M., Huffman, J., & Johnson, B. (2011). Clinical peer mentoring: Partnering BSN seniors and sophmores on a dedicated education unit. Nurse Educator, 36(5), 197–202. doi:10.1097/NNE.0b013e3182297d17Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Iwasiw, C. L., & Goldenberg, D. (1993). Peer teaching among nursing students in the clinical area: Effects on student learning. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(4), 659–668.10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18040659.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
Roberts, D. (2008). Learning in clinical practice: The importance of peers. Nursing Standard, 23(12), 35–41.10.7748/ns.23.12.35.s55Search in Google Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Secomb, J. (2008). A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(6), 703–716. doi:10.1111/j.1365–2702.2007.01954.xSearch in Google Scholar
Stockhausen, L. J. (2009). The patient as experience broker in clinical learning. Nurse Education in Practice, 9(3), 184–189. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2008.06.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Suikkala, A., & Leino-Kilpi, H. (2005). Nursing student–patient relationship: Experiences of students and patients. Nurse Education Today, 25(5), 344–354.doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2005.03.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Tanner, C. (2006). The next transformation: Clinical education. Journal of Nursing Education45(4), 99–100.10.3928/01484834-20060401-01Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Thorne, S. (2008). Interpretive description. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Search in Google Scholar
Thorne, S., Kirkham, S., & O’Flynn-Magee, K. (2004). The analytic challenge in interpretive description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1–21.10.1177/160940690400300101Search in Google Scholar
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston
