Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Teaching strategies and outcome assessments targeting critical thinking in bachelor nursing students: a scoping review protocol
  1. Frida Westerdahl1,
  2. Elisabeth Carlson1,
  3. Anne Wennick1,
  4. Gunilla Borglin1,2
  1. 1 Department of Care Science, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
  2. 2 Nursing Education, Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway
  1. Correspondence to Frida Westerdahl; frida.nygren{at}mau.se

Abstract

Introduction Applying critical thinking is essential for nursing students both in an academic and clinical context. Particularly, as critical thinking is a vital part of nurses’ everyday problem-solving and decision-making processes. Therefore, regardless of the topic taught or the setting in which it is taught, it requires teaching strategies especially targeting students’ critical thinking skills and abilities. One challenge with the latter is the difficulties to assess and evaluate the impact of such teaching strategies on the students’ critical thinking disposition. Hence, our objective will be to review published literature on; existing teaching strategies and outcomes assessments targeting nursing students’ critical thinking skills and abilities.

Methods and analysis Our scoping review will be conducted in accordance with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for scoping studies. Search strategies will be developed in cooperation with an experienced librarian, and adjusted to each individual database for example, CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC and ERC. A preliminary search in CINAHL was conducted on the 17th of July 2019. Peer-reviewed published studies conducted with a qualitative, quantitative or mixed method design and focussing our objectives, will be eligible for inclusion. Included studies will be quality assessed in accordance with their study design. Data will be charted using a standardised extraction form. The qualitative data will be presented through a thematic analyses, and the quantitative data by descriptive numerical analysis. Lastly, nurse educators and nursing students will be consulted for validation of the findings from the scoping review.

Ethics and dissemination Under the Swedish Ethical Review Act (2003:460) this study does not need ethical clearance by a Regional Ethical Review Authority as it not includes any primary empirical data on biological material or sensitive information. The findings will be used to inform the design of a future study aiming to develop an, and subsequently evaluate it, educational intervention targeting teaching strategies focussing on nursing students’ critical thinking skills and abilities.

  • critical thinking abilities
  • critical thinking skills
  • descriptive numerical analysis
  • nurse educators
  • thematic analysis
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors FW, EC, AW and GB were responsible for the initial design of this study. FW conceptualised the review approach and led the writing of the manuscript. FW, EC, AW and GB contributed to the protocol’s development and approved the final version of this protocol. GB, EC and AW led the supervision of the manuscript preparation.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.