A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education.

Aim: To determine whether the use of an online or blended learning paradigm has the potential to enhance the teaching of clinical skills in undergraduate nursing.

Background: The need to adequately support and develop students in clinical skills is now arguably more important than previously considered due to reductions in practice opportunities. Online and blended teaching methods are being developed to try and meet this requirement, but knowledge about their effectiveness in teaching clinical skills is limited.

Design: Mixed methods systematic review, which follows the Joanna Briggs Institute User guide version 5.

Data Sources: Computerized searches of five databases were undertaken for the period 1995-August 2013.

Review Methods: Critical appraisal and data extraction were undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute tools for experimental/observational studies and interpretative and critical research. A narrative synthesis was used to report results.

Results: Nineteen published papers were identified. Seventeen papers reported on online approaches and only two papers reported on a blended approach. The synthesis of findings focused on the following four areas: performance/clinical skill, knowledge, self-efficacy/clinical confidence and user experience/satisfaction. The e-learning interventions used varied throughout all the studies.

Conclusion: The available evidence suggests that online learning for teaching clinical skills is no less effective than traditional means. Highlighted by this review is the lack of available evidence on the implementation of a blended learning approach to teaching clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education. Further research is required to assess the effectiveness of this teaching methodology.

Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

This chapter attempts to provide a critical analysis of special needs education within the United Kingdom today. Central to such an analysis is an understanding of the rapidly changing social and political milieu within which special needs education is embedded, including the rapidly changing demographics of schooling, and the devolution of political power into four separate but linked countries - England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Following a discussion of such wider social, political and educational issues, the authors thoroughly explore the convergences and divergences in policy and practice across the four devolved administrations. They describe a plethora of contemporary texts within each of the four administrations that speak to the need for special needs education to change in response to 21st century concerns about the problems of access to, and equity in education for all children. Despite this, they explain why they remain circumspect about the potential of such developments to lead to successful inclusive practices and developments on the ground. Their analysis in the last section centres on the issue of teacher education for inclusion and some very innovative UK research and development projects that have been reported to successfully engage teachers with new paradigm thinking and practice in the field of inclusive special needs education.

How secure is a Newtonian paradigm for psychological and educational measurement?

From the early 1900s, some psychologists have attempted to establish their discipline as a quantitative science. In using quantitative methods to investigate their theories, they adopted their own special definition of measurement of attributes such as cognitive abilities, as though they were quantities of the type encountered in Newtonian science. Joel Michell has presented a carefully reasoned argument that psychological attributes lack additivity, and therefore cannot be quantities in the same way as the attributes of classical Newtonian physics. In the early decades of the 20th century, quantum theory superseded Newtonian mechanics as the best model of physical reality. This paper gives a brief, critical overview of the evolution of current measurement practices in psychology, and suggests the need for a transition from a Newtonian to a quantum theoretical paradigm for psychological measurement. Finally, a case study is presented that considers the implications of a quantum theoretical model for educational measurement. In particular, it is argued that, since the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is predicated on a Newtonian conception of measurement, this may constrain the extent to which it can make accurate comparisons of the achievements of different education systems.

A quantum measurement paradigm for educational predicates: Implications for validity in educational measurement

The outcomes of educational assessments undoubtedly have real implications for students, teachers, schools and education in the widest sense. Assessment results are, for example, used to award qualifications that determine future educational or vocational pathways of students. The results obtained by students in assessments are also used to gauge individual teacher quality, to hold schools to account for the standards achieved by their students, and to compare international education systems. Given the current high-stakes nature of educational assessment, it is imperative that the measurement practices involved have stable philosophical foundations. However, this paper casts doubt on the theoretical underpinnings of contemporary educational measurement models. Aspects of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy and Bohr’s philosophy of quantum theory are used to argue that a quantum theoretical rather than a Newtonian model is appropriate for educational measurement, and the associated implications for the concept of validity are elucidated. Whilst it is acknowledged that the transition to a quantum theoretical framework would not lead to the demise of educational assessment, it is argued that, where practical, current high-stakes assessments should be reformed to become as ‘low-stakes’ as possible. The paper also undermines some of the pro high-stakes testing rhetoric that has a tendency to afflict education.