Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report from CURRICULUM MEETING POINTS
AN INTERKULT SEMINAR AT OSLO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, FACULTY OF NURSING
September 20th – 24th, 2010
Contents 1.Background 2.Funding 3.Participants 4.Program 5.Results 6. Conclusion
Appendix
Declaration of Intent
Original invitation
Comparison table
José Carlos Gomes’ summary from Tuesday, September 21st, and Thursday’s group work
The report was prepared by Suzanne Bancel, Advisor. Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College
1. Background The faculty of nursing at Oslo University College has a relatively lng history of developing exchange programs in Europe, as well as sending bachelor students abroad to countries like China, Cuba and Namibia. The faculty has also engaged in consortiums like COHEHRE and networks like Nordannet. Despite all this experience, those of us working in internationalization are often confounded by a feeling of lack of progress. There seems to be a deeply imbedded opposition to the change that is needed on a personal, individual level as well as on an institutional and structural level. This opposition manifests itself in both quiet and outspoken ways: it can be rigid curriculum requirements that allow no room for exchanges, it can be one faculty’s strong belief that their pedagogical practice is superior to other faculties’, it can be a student or teacher’s reaction to a foreign colleague’s way of expressing him/herself without allowing for the rings of cultural context this expression represents.
In December, 2009, the international team decided that if international work on the post-bachelor level was really to take root at the faculty, we needed to address some of the deeper issues blocking internationalization. We felt that if we could get behind the labels we use on a daily basis: Master, Bachelor, ects, nursing research, etc., we would have a chance at better communication. By better communication we meant communication towards connecting with core values and visions, as opposed to communication that appears to promote understanding but rather, marks territory and status.
We were not sure how to go about this. However, we were sure that we would need a concentrated period of time, a group of people with whom we already had had some positive international experiences, and finally, that student perspectives would be important.
We developed a simple proposal for a week-long seminar with active partners from the USA and Europe. Included in the proposal was a planning meeting in April where we invited representatives from Columbia University, Trinity College, Dublin Ireland, and Escola Superior do Saudé, (Instituto Politecnico deLeiria) Portugal, to attend. It was important from the start that this week was a shared experience with equal stakes for everyone – it was not “Oslo’s program”. Once our grant was approved, we sent out preliminary invitations (see appendix 1). The responses to this invitation were all positive, although it was difficult for some to understand what we were hoping to achieve. We were purposefully vague on this point. We did not want to predefine the outcome of the seminar, as we felt that would impede the quality of communication we were hoping to achieve. It was difficult for colleagues to attend the meeting, but fortunately Sarah Sheets Cook, vice-dean from the Columbia School of nursing and midwifery could attend. At the meeting, the following objectives were laid out for the seminar:
OBJECTIVES: 1) Appreciate how degrees at advanced/master/doctoral levels have evolved in
different participant countries
2) Explore new ways to value and understand various degrees including identifying what degree holders in different countries are sanctioned/qualified to do 3) Explore potential curriculum meeting points and describe various ways faculty and students can exchange and share learning experiences
2. Funding
The Faculty of Nursing used two funding sources for this seminar. The main source of funding was through Oslo University College’s INTERKULT grant program. Funding from the Project funds for higher education collaboration with North America provided additional funds for participants from the United States.
Funding from INTERKULT was used to achieve specific goals:
Information: We needed lecturers who could provide common information on European and American higher education processes – Bologna and EU actions, degree structures in the US, history of education in Europe and different grant possibilities.
Reflection: We also needed lecturers who could inspire to reflection about why and how degrees evolve, and why and how status connected to these degrees evolves and changes.
Feasibility: We knew it would be too expensive for our partners to sepnd a week “in discussion” in Oslo, so we needed to remove as many economic barriers as possible. At the same time, the idea of being equal stakeholders was important, and we did not feel it was HiO’s responsibility to cover all costs connected to participation.
Shared experiences: We knew the seminar would be intense, and we knew we were walking into areas with the potential for conflict. We wanted participants to be comfortable in their surroundings, have a private space, and have certain enjoyable experiences that could provide alternative topics for conversation.
3.Participants The following institutions were invited to participate, with one faculty member teaching on the master or DNP level and one student from a master or DNP program: Columbia University, NYC USA Fairfield University, Fairfield, USA Lunds Universitet, Lund Sweden Escola Superior do Saudé, Leiria Portugal Trinity College, Dublin Ireland Bournemouth University, Bournemouth England College of Nursing, Jesenice, Jesenice Slovenia Viborg sygeplejeskole, Viborg Denmark
Riga Stradins University, Riga Latvia
It soon became clear that it was difficult for students to attend, since many had jobs alongside their studies, as well as family obligations. Lunds University and Bournemouth University which at first accepted the invitation had to withdraw. It was then decided to invite the University of Malta, an institution with which we had had some contact, but no agreement. By August 20th, the final list, including external lectures included: Faculty Birte Hedegaard Larsen, associate professor Via University College, Denmark [email protected] Sarah Cook, Vice Dean, School of Nursing Columbia University, USA [email protected] Jeanne Novotny, Dean, School of Nursing Fairfield University, USA [email protected] Carole Pomorico, Assistant Professor, School of Nursing Fairfield University, USA [email protected] Fintan Sheerin, Director of Teaching and Learning School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland [email protected] Jose Carlos Gomes, Vice Dean, Escola Superior de Saúde, Instituto Politecnico de Leiria, Porturgal [email protected] Joca Zurc, Senior lecturer, Jesenice College of Nursing, Jesenice Slovenia [email protected] Roberta Sammut, Head of Department of Nursing, University of Malta [email protected] Kari Toverud Jensen, Dean Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College, Norway [email protected] Georg Schjelderup, Associate Professor, Faculty of Nursing Oslo University College, Norway [email protected] Kari O. Jensen, Head of International Unit, Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College,Norway [email protected] Finn Nortvedt, Head of Studies (Master in Clinical Nursing Science) Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College, Norway [email protected] Liv Hovelsrud, Head of Studies (Master in Mental Health Work) Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College, Norway [email protected]
Dag Karterud, Head of Studies (Advanced practice programs in specialist health services) Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College, Norway [email protected] Suzanne Bancel, Adviser, International Unit, Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College, Norway [email protected] Representatives from Oslo University College (Monday only) Per Arne Olsen, Vice Rector, Oslo University College [email protected] Dagrun Kvammen, Head of International Office, Oslo University College [email protected] Students Anne Bendix, Via University College, Denmark [email protected] Ron Castillo, School of Nursing Fairfield University, USA [email protected] Sofia E. Olsen, Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College, Norway [email protected]
Sanela Pivač, Jesenice College of Nursing, Slovenia [email protected]
External Berit Karseth, Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Oslo [email protected] Peter Maassen, Professor, Faculty om Education, University of Oslo [email protected] Frank Moe, Adviser, Norwegian Center for Cooperation in Higher Education (SiU) [email protected] Catherine Schrumpf Nordahl, Program Officer for the Norwegian Program/Student Advisor, U.S.-Norway Fulbright Foundation for Educational Exchange [email protected] Rena Levin, Program Officer for the US Program/Student Advisor, U.S.-Norway Fulbright Foundation for Educational Exchange [email protected]
Participants were asked to complete a table that aimed to illuminate how their degree fit into their own society: historically, in relation to status and also career possibilities. The table was developed by the international team at Oslo’s Faculty of Nursing based on categories used by Robert Walker1 and the European Qualification Framework. The table was sent to Fintan Sheerin and Sarah Sheets Cook for comments before it was sent to the participants. The table is presented in appendix 2. Faculty participants were asked to provide a 20 minute presentation of their degree (s) based on the table. Student participants were asked to provide 15 minute presentations about their reasons and motivation for pursuing a higher degree in Nursing. In addition, responsibility for moderating the different sessions was divided as equally as possible among the seminar participants in an effort to strengthen the idea of equal stakeholding.
4.Program Monday The main focus of Monday’s program was to give the participants a common background for understanding historical and cultural differences in the development and current status of European master programs and American master and DNP programs. EU and Bologna goals and their varied success were discussed as well as different understandings, implementation and contents in both the European master and the American DNP. Tuesday The goal for Tuesday was an exchange of information about each university’s programs. Jose Carlos Gomes summary from this day and Thursday will be discussed in 5. Results. Wednesday Wednesday morning was devoted to information about funding opportunities through the Fulbright and Erasmus programs. Following lunch, discussions began about how and if the participants could collaborate. Sarah Sheets Cook moderated this session and presented a power point. Main points are: Nursing means different things to different people, depending on perception Nurses don’t agree amongst themselves Physicians often don’t understand differences in level of ability and education Administrators tend to wrap nursing care costs into room rates, food and janitorial
service costs [at least in the US] Patients trust nurses to care for them
1 Dr. Walker used these categories in a lecture about shame and poverty. The categories suggested a way to structure talks about degrees that would keep us out of the trap of only discussing credits and hours. His comment on our use of these terms is “This looks like a very creative use of the taxonomy. Isn't it fun when ideas turn out to have uses that one would never have dreamed of?. I might be tempted to rename 'political equivalence' 'policy equivalence' or something similar for your particular venture.” Robert Walker,Professor of Social Policy, Fellow of Green Templeton College, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford
Are there any international commonalities?? How does the ICN scope of practice compare to that in your own country?
Are levels of nursing recognized? What is the perception of nursing in your country? Who defines and controls education and practice for nurses in your country?
Are there multiple educational pathways? Is international collaboration really worthwhile??
Is globalization positive or negative?
Thursday Faculty worked in groups to arrive at specific suggestions for collaboration. Students attended an informal presentation by two of HiOs PhD fellows. The students then discussed their own suggestions for how participating faculties could collaborate. At the end of the day, students and faculty met to share their ideas. Two faculty groups and one student group each arrived at similar conclusions. Friday Participants attended the National Science Festival; some participants attended previously scheduled meetings concerning other collaborative efforts.
5. Results During the week the participants became more aware of deeply rooted differences in approaches to nursing education on the Master and DNP level. Participants also increased their understanding of the external factors that may promote and sustain these differences. At the same time, there was strong feeling of common struggles, visions, shared passion and determination. José Carlos Gomes’ summary from Tuesday can be viewed as a starting point for the collaboration proposal created by the participants on Thursday. Proposal The participants propose a consortium arrangement that will provide maximum flexibility for each faculty and hopefully promote an entrepreneurial spirit in future collaboration. The proposal addresses the following concerns:
Unstable financial situations
Changes in university organization
Time and financial restraints for students
Institutional control of resources A Declaration of Intent will be sent to each institution. The declaration will be a standard formulation about participating in collaborative activities with one or more of the partners based on what each institution itself can provide of resources from year to year. Institutions
will be expected to provide some opportunity for master student(s) from at least one other institution within a three year period in order to remain a part of the consortium. Suzanne Bancel from the international team at the Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College will create a website for information about the consortium, information about student options and other relevant information will be posted. Both students and faculty are interested in a website that provides opportunity for discussion (chat and/or discussion boards), access to lectures and blogs, and more.
6. Conclusion
The Curriculum Meeting Points seminar met and surpassed its objectives, as is evidence in the consortium proposal. Although a follow-up meeting was not discussed at the seminar, it seems reasonable to plan now for a follow up meeting in one year. In keeping with the “equal stake holder” approach, an institution other than Oslo University College should take initiative in this, and all institutions should look for funding sources that would make this possible. The principle of including students should not be forgotten.
Students can search for: Supervisors
Research fields
Module programmes
And apply for it with the recommendation of its own university.
Fairfield IPL
Trinity College
HiO Malta
Via Columbia
Jesenice
Curriculum Meeting Points Consortium Declaration of Intent
The following institutions agree to explore and develop collaborative initiatives aimed at increasing Master, Phd and DNP students contact with partner institutions, curriculum innovation and strengthening the role of post-bachelor education in advance practice nursing and nursing research and development. Via University College, Denmark School of Nursing,Columbia University, , NYC USA School of Nursing, Fairfield University, Ct, USA Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College Department of Nursing, University of Malta School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Escola Superior de Saúde, Instituto Politecnico de Leiria, Porturgal
Jesenice College of Nursing, Jesenice Slovenia Commitment to the agreement Participants in the consortium agree to publish possibilities for student collaboration on a website run by the international team at the Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College. Institutions themselves determine what they can offer. The information must be updated each June for the coming academic year (academic year beginning between August and October and ending between June and August). Possibilities can include, but are not limited to: student exchanges, priority access to online courses, co-advisors for thesis or capstone projects, pairing students from different institutions for joint writing projects. Participants agree to at least one possibility must be offered in a 3 year period of time in order to be part of the network. Information about possibilities must be as specific and detailed as possible. Routines Institutions must send information to Suzanne Bancel for publication on the website. Institutions must direct their students to the website for information about possibilities. Once a student has found a possibility on the website the student must ask his/her adviser to contact the institution of interest. All exchanges, co-advising agreements, etc. must then be organized and agreed on between the two (or more) involved institutions, and are not under the “authority” of the consortium. This also includes agreements concerning payment /waiving of student fees, tuition, etc. Students themselves are responsible for securing housing if the agreement involves an exchange. The website includes links to information about possible funding sources for students, but the consortium does not provide additional assistance in finding funding sources.
By signing the Declaration of Intent, the institution agrees to the above terms and has the proper authority to represent the institution in this agreement.
Printed name
Signature
Place Date Institution’s seal
Curriculum meeting points – Understanding the European Master and the American Doctor of
Nursing Practice
A seminar hosted by the Faculty of Nursing, Oslo University College, September 20th – 24th, 2010 We are pleased to invite a faculty member involved in curriculum development and one master or DNP student from your institution to participate in a seminar designed to explore the development and status of; and similarities and differences between European and American higher nursing degrees. We plan a week with lectures, workshops and cultural activities that we hope will lead to a deeper understanding of approaches to higher education in nursing as well as strengthening existing partnerships and finding new partners. The main content of the program will depend on the active participation of all attendees. Guest speakers from the Norwegian center for Internationalization in Education (SIU), the Fulbright Office and the Center for Professional Studies, Oslo University College will also participate. A detailed program will follow. As our guests, your room will be covered for six nights, and we will provide all lunches and three dinners. We ask that you organize your own travel arrangements. Cordially,
Kari Toverud Jensen Dean of the Faculty of Nursing
Please reply as soon as possible, and no later than May 30th to Suzanne Bancel: [email protected]
The following institutions have been invited: Columbia University, NYC USA Fairfield University, Fairfield, USA Lunds Universitet, Lund Sweden Escola Superior do Saudé, Leiria Portugal Trinity College, Dublin Ireland Bournemouth University, Bournemouth England
College of Nursing, Jesenice, Jesenice Slovenia Viborg sygeplejeskole, Viborg Denmark Riga Stradins University, Riga Latvia
CURRICULUM MEETING POINTS SEMINAR, OSLO SEPTEMBER 20th – 24th, 2010 Form for presentation, exploration and discussion of degrees Presentation time: 20 minutes All information is in regard to your institution. Please fill out the form to the best of your ability and send it to Suzanne Bancel by September 10
th.
The last section is meant as guidelines for topics we would like to discuss. It does not need to be sent in, but is intended to help participants prepare for the seminar.
Conceptual equivalence State the competencies and competitive advantages for students holding a bachelor degree from your institution.*
State the competencies and competitive advantages for students holding a master degree from your institution.
State the competencies and competitive advantages for students holding a DNPdegree from your institution
*for example, in relation to clinical studies: students are expected to know the clinical field and have obtained some level of clinical skill – or students have been exposed to relevant clinical situations, but will gain most clinical skills when they begin to work
Functional equivalence What are the professional goals your institution has on behalf of Master degree holders?
Are these goals in alignment of expressed workforce needs?
What sort of positions are recent graduates obtaining?
What are the professional goals your institution has on behalf of DNP degree holders?
Are these goals in alignment of expressed
workforce needs?
What sort of positions are recent graduates obtaining?
Measures of equivalence What are the entrance requirements to the master program?
What are the entrance requirements to the DNP program?
How many hours is the master program?
How many hours is the DNP program?
What percent of the master program is devoted to clinical study?
What percent of the DNP program is devoted to clinical study?
What kind of project(s)/thesis is required for the master degree, what is the length of the project/thesis?
What kind of project(s)/thesis is required for the DNP, what is the length of the project/thesis?
What international benchmarks can these programmes be examined against in order to evaluate comparability in levels of skill/knowledge outcomes?
To what national accreditation frameworks do the DNP and MSc, respectively link?
Political equivalence (Does not need to be sent beforehand) Who initiated developing DNP degree?*
Is the goal of the master in alignment with expressed workforce needs?
Is the goal of the DNP in alignment with expressed workforce needs?
What degree of autonomy do holders of the master have at their workplace?
What degree of autonomy do holders of the DNP have at their workplace?
Is attainment of a DNP or MSc formally allied to career progression along a particular path - clinical, management, research, education etc?
Does attainment of a DNP or MSc automatically allow progression or does it meet one of a number of criteria for such progression?
How are holders of the master degree valued within the profession?
How are holders of the DNP degree valued within the profession?
How are holders of the master degree valued by society in general?
How are holders of the DNP degree valued by society in general?
*This question doesn’t refer to whom at your institution, but to which actor in society took initiative, perhaps it was an idea shared by many individuals or groups and appeared simultaneously at many institutions
Tuesday, September 21st
Theme of the day The day was dedicated to the discussion of similarities and differences between developed programmes (Masters and DNP) by each University or University College. We developed a Friendly discussion in order to find our meeting point and analyse how, when and with which means, is possible the development of common advanced (master and doctorate level) nursing education (building a common programme or organizing sharing modules for our students). Each institution presented their programmes to the seminar group. 9.15., Via University College (Denmark) presented by Birte Hedegaard Larsen Presentation of the institution History of nursing education in Denmark Nursing education organization (from bachelor to doctorate) in Denmark Philosophy in nursing curricula development The master curriculum (120 ECTS) is a joint programme with Deakin University (Australia), in a b-learning organization (work for 9 years now). Weekly seminars are organized to discuss specificities of Scandinavian population and Scandinavian health organization. Minor thesis with 30 ECTS (clinical master has a final project with 15 ECTS). Comments by the seminar group: Complex structure of the master (b-learning organization) Why a collaboration with an Australian University? 9.40. Trinity College (Ireland) presented by Fintan Sheerin Overview of nursing education and nursing professional organization in Ireland: Colleges only offer masters, even if nothing prohibited them to offer doctorates (there is in discussion the possibility for a professional doctorate). Nursing education have a lot of regulation (from the Nursing board, the ministry of health). Overview of Clinical Nursing career pathway Aster programme developments Trinity college challenges Managers in health organizations want doctoral education (but not PhDs) – Upcoming plans Master programs organization. Dissertation module (22000 words based on research which includes data collection (30ECTS) Comments by the seminar group: What is a Theoretical Masters? Masters based upon theory modules. Dissertation is related with a theoretical subject. Use of nurse ground theories in Trinity College? Base in caring theories but there is a big resistance to theories; education is based on practice (trained to performed tasks!). 10.20. Short break 10.35. Oslo University College (Norway) presented by Georg Achelderup
History and evolution of the master in clinical nursing: It is a more theoretical master programme. It also qualifies for the PhD. Differences in programs between theoretical and practice masters (paragraph 3 and paragraph 5). History and evolution of the interdisciplinary master in mental health work. The main difficulty is the absence of recognition of master programmes by Oslo University Hospital. Challenges for the future: get students into the programme, stop the Oslo University boycott. For that we must explain the gains of having nursing masters working in health institutions. Dilemma: evolution of the master related with economical issues. Comments of the seminar group: Does the university have the capability to improve changes in master organizations? Yes, slowly but yes. The situation presented is solvable. The proposed scenario is impossible. 11.15. Columbia University (USA) presented by Sarah Sheets Cook History of Columbia University and history of the school of nursing: the school offers a graduate programme in Nursing. Establish a base in nursing, based on a problem solved approach. Master programmes are organized in core courses. All courses have a didactic and a clinical component. Needs requirements for the state of New York: They do not require a research project (because they felt it was a waste of time for the poor results achieved). They support a capstone project (philosophic paper, a paper that identifies a specific problem in nursing). DNP: 40 (American) credits. Difference in orientation: Prepare to act independently. PhD programme is a High quality programme. No comments of the seminar group 11.40. University of Malta (Malta) presented by Roberta Sammut History of Malta Master in health science programme (it is a part-time programme) Will to develop inter professional masters programmes. They are recently a faculty and want to develop common programmes with other areas that are included in the faculty (physiotherapy, for example). Colaboration with international universities is already a reality. 90 ECTS – 2250 hours of students total work (curriculum presented including the main objectives for the master programme) Dissertation (20000 to 25000 words) Comments of the seminar group: Difficulties of engaging in long programmes? Need to adapt the master organization 13.20. Jesenice Nursing College (slovenia) presented by Joca Zurc History of Slovenia and higher education in Slovenia Teaching in higher education in Slovenia Past and present in nursing education in Slovenia. Evolution (and political decisions) on nursing career JNC is a new university (3 years) and had their first graduates in July 2010. The master program have 120 ECTS (3000 hours). Dissertation between 80 to 100 pages (20 ECTS). 13.50. Escola Superior de Saúde do Instituto Politécnico de Leiria (Portugal) presented by Jose Carlos Gomes
Overview of nursing education and nursing career Overview of the Bologna Process in Portugal Presentation of the bachelor nursing programme at IPL To enter the master program, it is require that the candidate have a pre graduate nursing education (Licenciatura em Enfermagem – 4 years, 8 semesters; 6480 hours, 240 ECTS) Both actual masters (mental health nursing and child health and pediatric nursing) programs have 2430 total work hours (90 ECTS). Each semester represents 30 ECTS (810 hours). 30 ECTS (810 hours) are devoted to clinical practice (in real situations, in hospital and community settings). It is required a report (15 ECTS) about the work developed in the clinical practice semester (length 60 to 80 pages) including the results of a research-action project that may be used for evidence based nursing care, in their specific field. The master programmes were developed under the guidelines of international organizations (World Health Organization, European Union and International Council of Nurses) regarding the expected competences of specialized nurses. 14.25. Fairfield School of Nursing (USA) presented by Carole Pomorico and Jeanne Novotny Bachelor degree has 120 (American) credits in order to graduate. The theoretical courses have a practical component. They develop Bachelor, master and now (2010) a DNP degree. They develop a 15 month program for students with another bachelor degree. Development of partnerships with the community colleges 3 clinical tracks:
Anaesthesia.
Nurse practitioners (family and psychiatric)
Health care management Nursing is the top of the “foodchain” in the USA academic setting Need for reinforce funding (events, private funding) 50 to 60% of the master is devoted to clinical practice. DNP program: 2 years (post master DNP). Students’ presentation: 15.00. Ron (USA) “I really did not want to be a nurse; I wanted to be the guy that pulls up the accident man from the highway “ He enjoyed to care patients, but felt a wall in his career development. Future of nursing care will be less focus on inpatient setting. 15.05. Anne (Denmark) She went to master because she wanted to learn more. The difficulty of communicate to teachers and supervisors in a different language (she did a collaborative master with an Australian University). The quality development of nursing care needs advance education. 15.20. Sanela (Slovenia) The master program enable her to take responsibility for monitor and improve clinical work, … Care provided is of the highest quality possible. She choose a master programme because nurses must provide quality care directed to autonomy. In the future the focus will be in the community, with emphasis on educating patients. Sofia (Norway) did not present her experience because she was sick. Synthesis Closing remarks, by José Carlos (IPL) Strengths
Strong and motivated institutions
Differences in nursing education organization
A common vision for a highly qualified nursing education (nurses are the most important health professionals for the 21st century)
Different experiences and different focuses in nursing development
Public and private higher education institutions
Similarities in students expectations Weaknesses
Differences in credits organization
Differences in curricula organization
Lack of a common “language”
Public and private higher education institutions Opportunities
Diversity of the programs
Developing a common programme – or the possibility for common modules (master or DNP)
Bologna process
Cultural differences
To talk with the society as a whole about nursing
Public and private higher education institutions Threats
Economic crisis
Recognition of degrees at a national and international level
National organizations of higher education
National organizations of nursing careers Website development
