Self-directed learning and student supervision

Nunr Education Today (1991) 11, X58-377 @ Longman Group UK LtJ3 199 1

WORK Self-directed learning and student supervision

Oliver D’A Slevin and Maureen C Lavery

I Nurse education in the United Kingdom is undergoing major changes arising from proposals for a new preparation for practice entitled Project 2000 (UKCC 1988). Self-directed learning is identified as an important element in most Project 2000 qualifying education programmes. There is, however, some lack of clarity about self-directed learning and how it should be managed in the curriculum. This paper addresses the fundamental meaning of the self-directed learning concept and the advantages in this approach. It is suggested that a balance must be established between maximising the student’s control of her own learning and the constraints imposed by statutory educational requirements, particularly with regard to learning outcomes. The issue of the locus of control at various stages in the learning process is considered. The paper concludes by identifying the teacher’s role as a supervisor of studies and a partnership model for student supervision is proposed.

1

INTRODUCTION

Between October 1990 and April 1991 new curricula in qualifying or pre-registration nurse education are being introduced in Northern Ireland. The new curricula, based on the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Mid- wifery and Health Visiting (UKCC) scheme entitled Project 2000, will involve radical changes in nurse education to meet the needs in the 1990s and beyond (UKCC 1988). Similar changes are taking place in other parts of the UK during the early 1990s.

Oliver D’A Shin PhD MA BA RGN RMN RNT Principal Professional Officer, The National Board for Nursing, Midwifen/ and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland, 79 Chichester Street, Belfast BTI 4JE. N. Ireland and Maureen C Lavery BA SRN SCM PINT Professional Adviser, The National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland (Requests for offprints to ODS) Manuscript accepted 27 March 1991

368

The National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland (the statutory body responsible for approving curricula and ensuring that educational standards set by LJKCC are met) has recently issued guidance on the new form of education (National Board 1989a, 1989b, 1990). It is intended that the overall philosophy of the new 3-year curriculum will be directed toward developing in the student the capacity to undertake the role of a know- ledgeable and competent practitioner of nursing. The essential nature of the programme will be that of a role-based curriculum which is directed toward learning outcomes related to the role of the nurse in particular care settings.

The nature of the new curriculum will require a significant shift in teaching and learning methodologies. There will be a greater emphasis on discovery-orientated approaches and exper- iential learning. And there will also be a greater emphasis on what is sometimes termed self- directed learning.

NURSE EDUCATION TODAY 369

Perhaps the most significant element in the new curriculum will be the orientation to change. There is no doubt that nursing shares with other disciplines a pace of change which almost guarantees that what holds true in terms of professional knowledge and practice standards today will not hold true next year or the year after! Against such a background the following statement by Rogers ( 1983) is perhaps one of the most important comments on education in the last decade:

‘We are, in my view, faced with an entirely new situation in education where the goal of education, if we are to survive, is the facilitation of change and learning. The only man who is educated is the man who has learned how to learn; the man who has realised that no knowledge is secure, that only the process of seeking knowledge gives a basis for security. Changingness, a reliance on process rather than upon static knowledge, is the only thing that makes any sense as a goal for education in the modern world’ (p 120).

The development of self-directed learning as a method is therefore not only justified as an effective means of learning current knowledge and skills. In a constantly changing situation it is an essential vehicle for enabling students to develop independent learning skills which will be of vital necessity throughout the nurse’s career.

Teachers who have operated in the past on a traditional mode within the parameters established by organisational structures and curriculum constraints may find it difficult to adjust to a more student-centred curriculum. In their first report of evaluative research into Project 2000 demonstration schemes in England, Leonard and Jowett (1990) have found some evidence to support this claim. Although this ongoing research project is still in its early stages there is already an indication that some teachers lacked the confidence to promote self direction and compensated for this by packing the course with taught theory and attempts to cover all topics in the curriculum through direct instruction. It would seem that there is a need to address the

issue of self-directed learning and how it may be facilitated in the new Project 2000 curriculum.

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING

Problems of terminology

The emphasis on self-directed learning in educational programmes presents a dilemma. While many curriculum planners and teachers express a commitment to greater student control, self- directed learning is in fact a concept which means different things to different people. Law- son (1979) appears to get right to the heart of this problem when he differentiates between student-centred teaching and ‘self-education’. The former involves the student taking an active role in the teaching-learning situation, with the teacher acting as a facilitator. The latter assumes no direction from a teacher. The student learns by his own devices. Lawson (1979), in com- menting on self-education states that:

‘In this sense it would be logically possible for a person to have discovered by accident or to

have developed by trial-and-error some of the knowledge, skills or dispositions associated with an educated man. Contingently this is

unlikely but it could happen’ (p 26).

Not everyone would subscribe to Lawson’s rather pessimistic opinion and it is commonly felt that discovery-orientated learning has high impact.

It certainly seems that adults increasingly take

responsibility for education themselves. This would appear to be mainly stimulated by vo- cational or work-orientated needs or as a response to personal living-learning motives, e.g. to facilitate home repairs or recreational pursuits, or in response to more fundamental needs for knowledge acquisition or self-

discovery. However, the extent to which this reflects an increase in self-education as defined by Lawson is unclear. Tough (1978) found that 80% of adult learning was self-planned and self-led. However, Penland (1979) found that only 25% of such learning was self-planned. This

370 NURSE EDUCATION TODAY

marked difference is probably due to the defi- nitions of self-planning and self-leading utilised by these observers. It would appear, for example, that Tough (1978) classified the use of published educational packages on the individual’s own initiative as self-planning and self-leading. Penland (1979), conversely, viewed such approaches as in effect being indirectly led by others. The findings of both writers concur, however, in that they see the increasingly popu- lar pattern in adult learning as one in which the student has considerable control over the learning situation.

The problem here is essentially one of establishing roles and the degree of student and teacher control in the teaching-learning situation. Knowles (1975) suggests that self-directed learning involves the student identifying her own particular learning needs, establishing goals, deciding on what learning activities will take place and assessing or evaluating success herself. The teacher’s role is that of facilitating this learning. In essence this can mean a relationship in which the student decides and the teacher responds. Such a relationship may be suitable in less formal and more discovery-oriented approaches, such as that implicit in the student- centred model referred to above. However the constraints of time in the nursing curriculum, and the need to ensure that the learning outcomes specified by statute are achieved, require that some attention is given to the issue of control.

A working framework

Given the difficulties with terminology identified above, there is a need to be explicit about the meaning of self-directed learning within the new curriculum. Iwasiw (1987) suggests that in self- directed learning the responsibility for learning decisions rests with the student either solely or in negotiation with the teacher. Knowles (1975) also recognises the possibility of formalising self-directed learning by negotiation and the agreement of a written learning contract between student and teacher.

In the context of statutory pre-registration nurse education self-directed learning

arrangements must be sufficiently formalised to ensure that the statutory learning outcomes referred to above can be met. At the same time there is a need to maximise the advantages of self-direction. It is suggested that the more important of these are as follows;

1.

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

The approach allows for individual learning styles. It also allows for self-pacing. The placing of responsibility for learning on the student is highly motivating, particularly if the student can see the direct relevance of content to her prospective role as a nurse. There is emphasis on ‘finding out for oneself, a learning approach with particularly high impact. The approach avoids the danger of indoc- trination implicit in more didactic methods and promotes the self as a thinking and responsive individual. By being placed in the position of having to apply critical judgement to what will be, and what is, studied the student will develop the capacity of suspended judgement or healthy scepticism which Dewey (1982/1910) identified as the essence of critical thinking. There is a likelihood that responsibility for decision-making and control of self-directed study will generalise into a higher degree of confidence and self-assertiveness than would be the case in more traditional approaches where students are deprived of autonomy. The student will quickly develop self- learning skills essential for ongoing study throughout the pre-registration course and subsequent nursing career.

There are however major problems of role relationships here. There is an implied shift away from traditional roles in which the teacher is superordinate and student subordinate toward a more equal partnership which may cause both students and teachers unease. This is intensified by the lack of clarity in relation to terminology and the degree of shift implied. Figure 1 goes some way toward illustrating the

NURSE EDUCATION TODAY 37 1

rOZAL P-P

t Corplrtr studtnt control.

lo tmchcr influrnet at all.

Studrnt plans and controlc ehr proqrsmmr.

Self-arsrssmrnt only.

4lurys individualisrd.

Student-centred and with high studrnt control.

leachrr rnrblrr

but doa not lead.

Student still r4kw decisions on progrumr plan 4nd contmt.

Self-rssrsrment with ttmchw rdvict on

rlqurst.

Usually . individurlirld.

Fig 1 The teacher-student control continuum

continuum of control and terminology which may be applied.

The model proposed here for maximising self-direction suggests a sharing of control and approximates most closely with the concept of ‘partnership’ suggested in Figure 1. This model requires that the student will be proactive in organising and undertaking the required study. The teacher would have a vitally important role in terms of providing broad direction, assisting with the establishment ofconceptual or cognitive maps and learning plans, providing support and advice as required and monitoring progress. Both teacher and student would jointly agree learning contracts and evaluation or assessment

of outcomes would be shared. The importance of promoting the student’s responsibility for self direction must be balanced with the teacher’s responsibility for ensuring that specified learning outcomes have been achieved. The Table illustrates how control may be shared in the proposed model.

SUPERVISION OF LEARNING

This development will involve for many teachers a fairly significant change in role, from an essentially didactic model to one including student supervision. In nurse education the idea

Control is shrrrd rqurlly by studwtt md ttrchrr.

Essrntiqll; a trmsqctionrl modrl.

Student and tuchw together rprr* progrrmmt plrn 8nd

contwt.

Laming contruts art a common Cave.

Self rssassmwt and ttachw - 4sswsmwvt.

Ilay br individurlisrd or in groups.

Complrtr ttachtr control.

lhs tucker aaksr all proqrsrw dwisions.

The ;tudrnt is not consulted.

lcachrr 4ssrssmrnt

only.

Ihost rlrays

groups of students.


Table Control in the partnership model of self-directed

-w

Stage

Control of learning

Student Teacher

Identification of Learning Needs

Statement of Objectives/ Specification of Learning Outcomes

Programme Planning

Learning Activities

Higher (Individual needs outlined)

Lower (Viewed in context of previous learning and felt need)

Equal Equal (Negotiated (Negotiated learning learning contract) contract)

Higher (Commitment to agreed programme and contracted to achieve learning outcomes)

Lower (Commitment to facilitating, advising, guiding, resourcing and monitoring

Lower (Needs related to programme requirements1

Higher (Learning outcomes as specified in statutory instruments must be met)

because of the nurses’ commitment to other tasks. Conversely they found that, within the school, monitoring of ‘theoretical’ learning was more continuous, with approximately 13% of instruction time spent on tests and related mat- ters. However the idea of supervision of self- directed ‘theoretical’ learning - while common in higher education - is relatively recent in college or school of nursing-based education in the United Kingdom.

There is of course a long history of nursing students being required to undertake independent study and produce written assignments, essays, care studies, etc. However, teacher contact has traditionally been at two points. The student is given an assignment, and at this stage the teacher may give direction and advice. Then the student submits, the teacher marks the project and at this stage may discuss and offer advice. Between times the student usually works alone. In this model the opportunity to maximise learning through teacher-student interaction as work is proceeding is lost. It could be argued that supervision of learning is at best transient in such progress)

Evaluation Equal Equal (Self (Teacher

circumstances. Armitage and Rees (1988) sug-

assessmentl assessment) gest a more appropriate interactive model con- sisting of three elements, as illustrated in Figure 2. Within this model, the student carries responsibility for ongoing work but the supervisor is

of supervising learning in the practice or clinical available throughout to support, inspire and setting has a long history. During clinical or field provide counselling and guidance as required. placements students are supervised by clinicians It should be noted that in the new curriculum and clinical teachers, primarily toward the end in Northern Ireland it is not intended that of developing competency in practice. Indeed in the USA the role of supervisor in the practice situation has developed as a specialist mana- gerial or staff development/educative role with a higher degree in nursing often a required qualification (Mooth & Ritvo 1966; Thorpe 1979).

It is often assumed that, at least in the clinical situation, relatively continuous and readily available supervision is available. However Reid (1985) in research carried out in Northern Ireland found that supervising clinicians (ward sisters, staff nurses) and clinical teachers had very little teaching contact with students. Jacka and Lewis (1987) also found that while students worked alongside their supervising clinicians, effective monitoring was only intermittent

STUDEWT l -? SuPmVISOR

\ . . .../ coNTmT AND PROCESS

Fig 2 A model for project supervision *Student-teacher interaction does not only occur in relation to input (agreeing content) and output (evaluating content). It continues throughout the project (process) as and when necessary. From Armitage and Rees ( 1988)


students will accept responsibility only in relation to ‘theoretical’ learning. In this sense the

division between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ which may have existed previously to varying extents is educationally undesirable. The Commission of the European Communities (1990) has recently recognised this problem and issued guidance on reducing the theory-practice gap in nurse education programmes. It is anticipated that in the new programme learning will be integrated. This would require that teacher supervision is not restricted to written work or theoretical

learning but also includes effective supervision in fieldwork practice situations. With a large component of self-directed learning across a broad range of curriculum content, teachers will require a suitable model for supervision.

TOWARD A MODEL FOR SUPERVISION

The need for supervision

Students in all types of curricula require some degree of ongoing support from their teachers. It is suggested above that where the curriculum includes a significant degree of self-directed learning this is particularly important. Although in such learning students hopefully will know what they have to achieve - either through receiving general direction or agreeing more specific learning contracts with their teachers - the process of achieving this learning is prob- lematic. The student has to set goals and timetables and organise her study. Private study skills and creativity in seeking out and gaining from learning experiences are necessary. Knowing how to use library resources and how and where to seek advice is important. And working alone or in teacherless groups is a daunting experience which often leaves students floundering in inde- cision.

The latter skills and abilities can in theory be learned, and the new curriculum in Northern Ireland will - as at present - place emphasis on learning to learn at an early stage in the programme. However not all young people may be ready for such approaches shortly after leaving

the secondary schooling system. Indeed Know-

les (1978) suggests that children are conditioned to a subject-centred presentation in the curriculum, with the assimilation of knowledge and its application in real life recognised as being defer- red until a later date. Conversely, adults adopt a problem-centred approach and are motivated towards learning which has immediate application in terms of current life patterns. Young people entering nurse education may not be

prepared for this latter andragogic mode. Indeed, their conditioned learning patterns up until entering nurse education may lead to rejection or difficulty in adapting. Torrance and Mourad (1978) suggest a diagnostic approach, using a Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale developed by Guglielmino (1977). It is suggested that use of this scale may help to identify areas of lack of readiness which teachers may then work towards remedying. However, such approaches may be time consuming and beyond the resources of teachers in an already full cur-

riculum. Given that students can be expected to experi-

ence difficulties to greater or lesser extent, the provision of ongoing advice and support as and when required is of paramount importance. Such supervision should not be viewed as a remedial intervention. It is, rather, an essential part of the curriculum and is particularly important in self-directed learning approaches. Students have a right to expect it and in the new curriculum it will be an essential part of the teacher’s role to provide it. This need for

responsiveness of the new curriculum to students’ needs should not be underestimated. It is also important to be mindful of the fact that

self-directed approaches are increasingly

common in secondary school education, particularly since the recent introduction of the General

Certificate of Secondary Education examination system. Future students will be familiar with such approaches and will themselves have expec- tations of their teachers as supervisors of studies.

The nature of supervision

There is a need to give careful consideration to the exact nature of the supervisor role. Terms

N.E.T.- C


such as supervisor, mentor, facilitator and director of studies abound and are often used with equal lack of clarity and with obvious overlap- ping of concepts. The only certainty in this area is that these terms often mean what people want them to mean.

Despite the difficulties of terminology, it is at least generally agreed that within education programmes there is a need for some form of supervisory or facilitatory support. Howard and Sharp (1983) stress that any student within a formal educational system must be comple- mented by a teacher. In the context of research studies they indicate that this teacher is usually identified as the supervisor or project director. However they place a considerable emphasis on the supervisor’s responsibility in this relationship. In this context Howard and Sharp suggest that a supervisor should: a) get the student to define objectives at each stage of her work; b) check to see that these objectives are met; and c) verify with the student that her work is of the right standard. They stress the monitoring aspects of the relationship and the importance of ongoing assessment and maintenance of supervision records.

The model presented by Howard and Sharp (1983) is worthy of note, particularly with regard to teacher/supervisor accountability in terms of ensuring that progress is adequate and specified learning outcomes are being met. This is particularly relevant in pre-registration nurse education where there are statutory responsibilities to confirm achievement of learning outcomes. However in the context of supervision of students throughout a course, and particularly in regard to the extensive element of self-directed study involved, the model is rather limited. It does not give sufficient emphasis to the positive contribution of the supervisor in facilitating learning. Nor does it give sufficient emphasis to the need to promote reponsibility for learning in the student.

Meeting this latter need is of major importance in terms of developing skills essential for career-wide self-directed learning. However it is also of importance in terms of developing self confidence and assertiveness. Nursing is a profession which requires of its practitioners

capacity to take responsibility and accept accountability. Yet in the past it was often the case that student nurses had no control over their educational programme. They were expected to follow the programme without question, to pass- ively follow the teacher’s instructions. Their views were not sought, and if expressed were ignored or responded to negatively. There was a real risk that the influence of learned helplessness as described by Seligman (1975) was a significant factor. That is, students may have unlearned any capacity to make decisions and take responsibility. The may have in fact learned ‘helplessness’ - an outlook of being unable to change things and to do only what they were told. The risk of carrying such attitudes and behaviour patterns into the clinical area as quali- fied practitioners is obvious. It may therefore be the case that increasing student control of learning in the curriculum is an effective device for establishing more assertive, responsibility-taking and accountability-accepting individuals within the profession. If such capacities are to be nurtured, the role of the supervisor is wider than the checking and monitoring function described by Howard and Sharp (1983). The role must extend beyond facilitating current learning to the promotion of future professional attributes.

One particular conceptualisation of supervision is adopted here. It draws on the role of the supervisor in post-graduate research in higher education. Welsh (1979) conducted research in this field, out of which she summarises the meaning attached to supervision by research students and their supervisors. The students expected the supervisor to have expertise in the study area. They expected the supervisor to be able to offer informed guidance and advice, to criticise constructively and to instruct them in areas of their knowledge or skills deficits. However they also expected the supervisor to show an interest in them, to be enthusiastic about their work and to act as a supportive friend. The supervisors had similar views, seeing themselves as being a ‘guide, philosopher and friend’. There was a recognition of the need for available support without excessive control. However supervisors also recognised monitoring, motivating and discipline as aspects of the role. These


elements of the supervision role in higher edu-

cation may be generalised to the nurse education field. As such they are advocated at least as a starting point for developing the supervisor role in the new Project 2000 curriculum.

A suggested model

On the basis of the aforementioned comments, it is suggested that supervision may be based on

the following elements.

1. The supervisor role should be teaching- learningcentred. While it may be necessary to assist students with personal difficulties, the role should not be based exclusively on a personal counselling model.

2. The supervisor should have expertise in the subject area, and be able to offer guidance, advice and individual tutorial services in the area of learning - in this

context, nursing. 3. The supervisor role should facilitate the

development of a close one-to-one relationship in which there is:

- mutuality or concensus about the nature of the relationship and the rules which apply within it;

- multi-modality in terms of domains of interaction, i.e., in terms of developing cognitive, affective and psychomotor aspects of learning;

- discriminatory recognition, i.e., the supervisor gets to know the student as an individual and not a stereotype;

- giving of help, predominantly in relation to learning but also - if necessary for facilitating this - of a more pastoral nature.

4. Because of the close one-to-one relationship required the supervisor should normally supervise no more than about 12

students. 5. For practical purposes, the supervision

may encompass support across the whole curriculum, including ‘theoretical’ and ‘practical’ learning and not be confined to the area of self-directed study.

It is of course important that supervising teachers maintain close links with clinicians and others responsible for the supervision and teaching of students during clinical/ field placement periods. The contribution of such personnel to the new Project 2000 programmes will be vital, from the initial stages of curriculum planning through to implementation and the provision of effective learning experiences during practice placements. In addition to supervision of students, nurse teachers will have

a responsibility for ensuring support for, and close collaboration with, personnel in facilities used for practice placements.

6. The supervisor role should be directed toward encouraging the student to increasingly accept responsibility for her own

learning. Andragogic rather than pedago- gic approaches should be utilised. For example particular units of learning or themes might be approached by assisting students to draw up learning contracts which give direction to process and outcomes. In particular the partnership model of self-directed learning outlined earlier is advocated.

7. Contacts, i.e. supervision sessions, should be frequent. The frequency will be determined by factors such as the individ-

ual needs of the learner, the stage in the

programme and the current learning

material. The following comments may be helpful: (a) Sessions should probably be more fre-

quent at the early stages and again toward the end of the programme.

(b) A 2-hour session twice a week is probably too frequent; a l-hour session once a month is probably too little.

(c) A prior arrangement/appointment system is preferable, and sufficient time should be programmed to avoid rushed, erratic sessions. However the supervisor should be as accessible to the student as workloads, timetables, etc, will allow, particularly at times of difficulty.


(d) Supervision sessions may take place in clinical settings (for ‘skills’ orientated topics) or in the supervisor’s office or other small room (for ‘theory’ orientated topics). In the latter case pri-

vacy, comfort, a writing board, reference materials and adequate work surfaces will be important.

The supervision schedule should be such as to facilitate ongoing monitoring and assessment. Suitable records, such as continuous assessment forms, student profiles or other records of student progress must be main- tained. Supervision sessions should be learning- orientated. The student should have opportunity to present ongoing work and explain difficulties. The supervisor should analyse and present critiques, provide guidance and direction as appropriate, and give the student feedback on progress. It is important to give positive reinforcement as often as possible. It is also important to avoid didactive approaches and excessive controlling.

lO.Where supervisors are responsible for a group of students throughout their training, the supervisor might be desig- nated as the teacher responsible for con- firming that, by the end of the programme, each of his students has achieved the learning outcomes specified by the United King- dom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

CONCLUSION

The development of the supervision role in the new curriculum will for most teachers be a significant innovation. Teachers will have to be more willing to take risks in allowing students greater responsibility for their own learning. At the same time individual teachers may be expected to accept more responsibility for a particular group of students throughout the programme rather than the partial, fragmented responsibility which they carried for all students at some stage of the programme in the past. Systems of

supervision will have to develop, and the above model should not be taken as definitive. Each

college will undoubtedly develop a system which fits in best with local circumstances and the

particular programme in operation. It will be particularly important that teachers

are adequately prepared for their role as supervisors. It would be most useful if time is set aside at staff meetings and in-service seminars to discuss this issue. However it would be unrealis- tic to expect that the highest quality of supervision will appear overnight. Staff will

undoubtedly quickly develop expertise in this new role. However, ongoing guidance and support will be necessary. To facilitate this, colleges may wish to give consideration to:

- establishing regular peer-group meetings for supervisors;

- allocating to each supervisor an adviser or mentor such as the teaching team leader or a teacher with long supervision experience.

In Northern Ireland the National Board’s professional advisers, in their monitoring and liaison roles, will also be available to suggest advice in this regard.

Throughout the UK, Project 2000 courses are being developed through links between nursing colleges and Higher Education institutions. In Norther Ireland links have been established with Universities (Department of Health and Social Services 1990). Courses will lead to nurse regist-

ration and the award of a higher education diploma. The developing relationship with universities, where student supervision has a long tradition, will offer college-based teachers an excellent opportunity for guidance and sharing in developing the supervisor role. While initially teachers may feel some apprehension, adequate support within colleges and developing relationships with colleagues in higher education should ensure that this educational innovation is both stimulating and rewarding.

References

Armitage S, Rees C 1988 Project supervision. Nurse Education Today 8: 99-104


Commission of the European Communities 1990 Guidelines on reducing the gap between theory and practice in programmes leading to qualification as a nurse responsible for general care. Advisory Committee on Training in Nursing, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels

Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) 1990 Higher Education Sub-Group: Education of Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors in Northern Ireland: The First Report of the Sub- Group. DHSS (ND, Belfast

Dewey J 1982 How we think. Heath, Lexington Mass. (Originally published 19 10)

Guglielmino L M 1977 Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale. University of Georgia (Unpub. PhD Thesis), Georgia

Howard K, Sharp J A 1985 The management of a research project. Gower, Aldershot

Iwasiw C I 1987 The role of the teacher in self-directed learning. Nurse Education Today 7,5: 222-227

Iacka K, Lewis D 1987 The clinical learning of student * nurses. Kings College, University of London, London

Knowles M S 1975 Self-directed learning. Follett, Chicago

Knowles M S 1978 The adult learner: A neglected species (2nd Ed). Gulf, Houston

Lawson K H 1979 Phiiosonhical concents and values in adult education. Open University Piess, Milton Keynes

Leonard A, Jowett J 1990 Project 2000 - 1, Charting the course: A study of the 6 ENB pilot schemes in pre-registration nurse education. National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, Slough, Berkshire

Mooth A E, Ritvo M M 1966 Developing the supervisory skills of the nurse - A behavioural science approach. Macmillan, New York

National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland 1989a The common foundation programme in nursing. NBNI, Belfast

National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland 1989b The branch programmes in nursing. NBNI, Belfast

National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland 1990 The common foundation programme in nursing and branch programmes for parts 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the register. NBNI, Belfast

Penland P 1979 Self instituted learning. Adult Education 29, 3: 170-179

Reid N G 1985 Wards in chancery? Nurse training in the clinical area. Royal College of Nursing, London

Rogers C 1983 Freedom to learn for the ’80s. Charles E. Merrill, London

Seligman M E P 1975 Helplessness: on depression, development and death. W H Freeman, San Francisco

Thorpe R 1979 Supervision: is a Master’s degree really necessary? Supervisor Nurse January 1979: 33-35

Torrance E P, Mourad S 1978 Some creativity and style of learning and thinking correlates of Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Learnine Readiness Scale. Psvcholoeical Reports 43: 1167-l 17;

I v

Tough A 1978 Major learning efforts: recent research and future directions. In: The adult learner: current issues in higher education. American Association for Higher Education, Washington DC

United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting 1988 Project 2000: The finalproposals. UKCC, London ”

Welsh 1 M 1979 The first vear of nest-graduate research study. The Society for’Rese&ch into Higher Education - University of Surrey, Guildford

Documents

Self-directed learning and student supervision