Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byErin Schmitt Modified over 11 years ago
1
Expert knowledge in public Revision of the Norwegian national Bachelor in Nursing Ingrid Torsteinson Bergen Deaconess University College, Haraldsplass ENQUA workshop Oslo, Norway Febr. 15th 2008
2
Three reports from 2005 to 2008 2005, Phase 1- the first report with two main requirements 2007, Phase 2 -requirements related to the program of study (curriculum) 2008, Phase 3 -requirements related to the competence of academic staff ( conclusions in June)
3
BA in Nursing- the first national revision of a programme of study 2005 31 BA in Nursing programs including 27 University colleges were evaluated 1 of 31 was re-accredited The whole sector was effected by the joint conclusion; - For all institutions - a limit of 2 years to achieve 20% of the academic staff to have senior lecturer/ professorial status - In addition for 16 of 30 – In 1 year verify that the curriculum is based on research and developmental work
4
Challenges for the department as a consequence of the report Several practical and economical consequences had to be solved Strategic plans with milestones for how to meet the requirements Increasing the competence of the academic staff; - Who and how? The curriculum; –project work including all academic staff. Strong focus on literature. Further training for academic staff in evidence based practice
5
Did the report contribute to any important aspects of knowledge? The BA in Nursing program consists of 50% practical training. - Different views of knowledge is of importance in a health profession study program; evidence based, as well as experience based knowledge The report; - The practical training is given very limited focus throughout the report - An obvious direction for one view of knowledge through a very strong focus on evidence based knowledge.
6
Are there any differences in the reports of 2005 and 2007? Reports should be published and should be written in a style which is clear and readily accessible to its intended readership. (ESG) 2005 -Partly short formulated conclusions with lack of reasons -Formulations with possibility for interpretation
7
Are there any differences in the reports of 2005 and 2007? 2007 -This report is more clearly formulated. -Gives the committee's interpretation of the study programme must be based on research and developmental work -Gives a reason for the conclusions
8
Some considerations for the public report Clear and simple formulations is of vital importance Is there a need for interpretation of central concepts? Given reasons for the conclusions Consider placement of the conclusion; - in the introduction, or at the end of the report?
9
Phase 1-Did the report have any influence? For the institution? For the department? For the students? For the public in general ?
10
Do the reports have any authority? A negative decision will lead to the loss of accreditation; - the Agency for Quality assurance in Education have sanction opportunities through the standards and criteria Requirements related to research and competence have had a very strong influence on the BA in Nursing program of study
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.