Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39006554›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2024

Bridging School and Practice? Barriers to the Integration of 'Boundary Objects' for Learning and Assessment in Clinical Nursing Education.

Malou Stoffels, Louti A Broeksma, Margot Barry, Stephanie M E van der Burgt, Hester E M Daelmans, Saskia M Peerdeman, Rashmi A Kusurkar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Malou StoffelsAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Medicine, Research in Education, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7997-0864
Louti A BroeksmaAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Medicine, Research in Education, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0000-3760-0171
Margot BarryRadboudUmc Health Academy, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9554-3726
Stephanie M E van der BurgtAmsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Teaching and Learning Center (TLC), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7188-1827
Hester E M DaelmansAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Medicine, Research in Education, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8387-2001
Saskia M PeerdemanAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Medicine, Research in Education, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5691-3210
Rashmi A KusurkarAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Medicine, Research in Education, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9382-0379

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In clinical health professions education, portfolios, assignments and assessment standards are used to enhance learning. When these tools fulfill a bridging function between school and practice, they can be considered 'boundary objects'. In the clinical setting, these tools may be experienced as time-consuming and lacking value. This study aimed to investigate the barriers to the integration of boundary objects for learning and assessment from a Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) perspective in clinical nursing education. Methods: Nineteen interviews and five observations were conducted with team leads, clinical educators, supervisors, students, and teachers to obtain insight into intentions and use of boundary objects for learning and assessment. Boundary objects (assessment standards, assignments, feedback/reflection/patient care/development plan templates) were collected. The data collection and thematic analysis were guided by CHAT. Results: Barriers to the integration of boundary objects included: a) conflicting requirements in clinical competency monitoring and assessment, b) different application of analytical skills, and c) incomplete integration of boundary objects for self-regulated learning into supervision practice. These barriers were amplified by the simultaneous use of boundary objects for learning and assessment. Underlying contradictions included different objectives between school and practice, and tensions between the distribution of labor in the clinical setting and school's rules. Discussion: School and practice have both convergent and divergent priorities around students' clinical learning. Boundary objects can promote continuity in learning and increase students' understanding of clinical practice. However, effective integration requires for flexible rules that allow for collaborative learning around patient care.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementEducation, NursingHumansInterviews as TopicLearningQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID39006554
PMCPMC11243767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.