1. Data analysis using the Attitudes Toward Poverty Scale found that students’ knowledge of poverty increased following the simulation, although many students continued to feel that poverty was linked to individual behaviors. Data following the Shalom experience, collected from student journals and student interviews, revealed positive shifts in attitudes toward individuals living in poverty. Constructivist Approach to Poverty Education in an Undergraduate Program Thomas Kuhn, MSN, RN, APRN, & Desiree Hensel, PhD, RN, PCNS-BC, CNE Objectives 1.Identify attitudes toward poverty and beliefs about the poor from nursing students in a pre-licensure curriculum. 2.Identify teaching strategies to increase social awareness among students of those in poverty. 3.Explore the impact that direct interaction with those living in poverty has on attitudes. Scaffolding Framework Contact information: Thomas Kuhn: tmkuhn@indiana.edu, Desiree Hensel: dehensel@iu.edutmkuhn@indiana.edudehensel@iu.edu Background IU School of Nursing, Bloomington campus, implemented a new curriculum in the fall of 2013 with a greater emphasis on community care settings. We had discovered that many of our students lacked a real-world understanding of how social determinants affected the health and well-being of their future patients (Work et al., 2015) Intervention When we used a mass simulation to introduce students to the struggles of those living in poverty, we found only mixed results on student learning. We therefore created a tiered approach to teaching patient centered competencies towards those living in poverty in our pre-licensure curriculum. First had our students view a film on the social determinants of health. Next, we operated a large group simulation of the situations people face who live in poverty. Finally, we arranged clinical experiences for students to spend 20 hours over the course of the semester, interacting directly with clients at the Shalom Community Center, which provides day shelter for Monroe County’s homeless population. References Work, J.,et al.,A Q methodology study of perceptions of poverty among Midwestern nursing students, Nurse Edu. Today. 2015.35(2),328-332. Yun, S. Weaver, R., 2010. Development and validation of a short form of the attitude toward poverty scale. Adv. Soc. Work. 2010.11 (2), 178- 187 1st exposure: Unnatural Causes Video 2nd exposure: Poverty Simulation 3rd exposure: Shalom Center Total scale ratings increased at each time point suggesting the tiered constructivist approach helped cultivate nonjudgmental, caring attitudes towards those living in poverty among our BSN students. Attitude Toward Poverty (Short Form)T1T2T3 1. Welfare makes people lazy.2.693.883.62 2. An able-bodied person using food stamps is ripping off the system. 2.673.673.65 3. Poor people are dishonest.4.104.024.31 4. People are poor due to circumstances beyond their control 2.833.583.49 5. Society has the responsibility to help poor people.3.593.893.91 6. Unemployed poor people could find jobs if they tried harder. 2.533.283.05 7. Poor people are different from the rest of society. 3.633.463.64 8. Poor people think they deserve to be supported.2.883.253.36 9. Welfare mothers have babies to get more money.3.413.613.83 10. Children raised on welfare will never amount to anything. 4.664.564.69 11. Poor people act differently.3.482.963.25 12. Poor people are discriminated against.4.144.314.4 13. Most poor people are dirty.3.643.753.58 14. People who are poor should not be blamed for their misfortune. 3.243.673.57 15. If I were poor, I would accept welfare benefits.3.554.03.90 16. Some "poor" people live better than I do, considering all their benefits. 3.433.844.09 17. There is a lot of fraud among welfare recipients. 2.452.913.12 18. Benefits for poor people consume a major part of the federal budget. 2.592.753.04 19. Poor people generally have lower intelligence than nonpoor people. 3.763.543.49 20. I believe poor people have a different set of values than do other people. 3.643.283.75 21. I would support a program that resulted in higher taxes to support social programs for poor people. 2.913.403.12 Factor : 1 Personal Deficiency (total)25.925.526. Factor 2: Stigma (total)21.727.127.7 Factor 3: Structural Perspective (total18.322.822.3 Scale Total:65.975.576.8 Data Results Note: ATP from Yun, S. Weaver, R., 2010 used with permission Conclusions