Supporting biosciences in the nursing curriculum: development and evaluation of an online resource

Aims. The aim of this project was to develop and evaluate an online resource designed to improve the biosciences knowledge of preregistration nursing students. Background. A number of studies have identified lack of biological subject knowledge and anxiety about studying biosciences as serious problems for nursing students. The availability of a contextualized biological information resource prior to and early in their studies might help to reduce this fear and anxiety. Methods. The project used an action research approach, involving an initial analysis of the extent of the problems with biosciences encountered by our nursing students, followed by the development and evaluation of a biology-based open learning resource (entitled Headstart) in collaboration with preregistration nursing students and nurse educators. Findings. The students in this study expressed a high level of concern about studying biology, and perceived this to be the most difficult aspect of their nursing programme (significantly more difficult than nursing practice). A significant correlation was also found between previous level of biological qualification and confidence in passing module tests. Evaluation of the new online resource illustrated the willingness of nursing students to use such a package, and general approval of its content and mode of delivery, despite a number of problems related to computer access and students’ inexperience with information technology. Conclusions. This project has provided further evidence of the need for additional resources in biosciences for nursing students. It has also illustrated the way in which a targeted online resource has the potential to provide substantial benefits in terms of supporting the nursing curriculum. Whilst further evaluation is needed, the findings suggest that Headstart has the potential to address a number of issues identified both by this study and by previous research in nurse education

Minimising Risks in Research-informed Teaching

Reported benefits of research-informed teaching include enhanced student engagement and graduates that are better prepared for employment in an uncertain world. However, there are a number of academic risks that can have both positive and negative impacts on staff and students when implementing research-informed teaching. Mitigating such risks could smooth the way for, or even encourage, wider exploration of innovative teaching methods with associated benefits. This paper presents findings of an empirical study that identifies what risks were encountered or perceived from both student and staff perspectives when adopting a research-informed teaching approach. Risks were identified through semi-structured interviews with multi-disciplinary staff and a questionnaire survey with students. Two risk categories were revealed as particularly significant for student learning: curriculum bias and how research engagement impacts on student experience. Staff reported considerable positive impacts on well-being and motivation when adopting research-informed teaching. In light of this, the frequently encountered strategies for staff to reduce risks and negative impacts are presented, including raising awareness of key teaching styles or methods and fostering a sense of wider cultural support for innovative pedagogies within and between disciplines and departments. More could be gained by acknowledging and managing the risks associated with research-informed teaching than by strategically avoiding this type of activity

Research-informed teaching from a risk perspective

There is now considerable support in the higher education literature for research-informed teaching as a means of improving student learning, particularly where this involves students as co-investigators. Such an approach, however, comes with a number of risks that have received little pedagogic attention. This paper addresses that knowledge gap by advocating a novel approach to research-informed teaching which adopts a risk-management philosophy. We review the literature surrounding the challenges of this style of teaching and identify why a risk-management approach might be appropriate to address some of the inherent issues of research-informed teaching previously reported. Our findings indicate a range of potential risks associated with either the delivery, or non-delivery, of research-informed teaching. We offer a broad framework categorising these risks. Forming the basis of a wider risk-management approach, this framework could promote increased reflection and enhancement of teaching practice

Undergraduate research involving human subjects should not be granted ethical approval unless it is likely to be of publishable quality

Small-scale research projects involving human subjects have been identified as being effective in developing critical appraisal skills in undergraduate students. In deciding whether to grant ethical approval to such projects, university research ethics committees must weigh up the benefits of the research against the risk of harm or discomfort to the participants. As the learning objectives associated with student research can be met without the need for human subjects, the benefit associated with training new healthcare professionals cannot, in itself, justify such risks. The outputs of research must be shared with the wider scientific community if it is to influence future practice. Our survey of 19 UK universities indicates that undergraduate dissertations associated with the disciplines of medicine, dentistry and pharmacy are not routinely retained in their library catalogues, thus closing a major avenue to the dissemination of their findings. If such research is unlikely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at a conference, or otherwise made available to other researchers, then the risks of harm, discomfort or inconvenience to participants are unlikely to be offset by societal benefits. Ethics committees should be satisfied that undergraduate research will be funnelled into further research that is likely to inform clinical practice before granting ethical approval.Peer reviewe