Workpackage 4

Jan Sitvast

Presentation for Dublin Meeting may 2014

Aim

n to develop suitable pedagogical solutions for learning about the issues connected with the three themes.

Objectives

- to do a literature review on the three core themes and compare findings from this review with findings from the data collected from stakeholders.

- to develop a didactic framework that matches learning objectives and feasible learning formats in which the eLearning material can be organized. Input for this will be the inventory of prioritized central issues, overarching characteristics between the three core themes and so called transversal skills. The didactic framework will be a grid that will give the learning materials a recognizable face with fixed recurring learning tasks and methods of knowledge transfer and exchange (e.g. videoclips, expert interviews, on-line lectures, case scenarios, etc.).

- to foster critical companionship of eMenthe partners on this didactic framework and pedagogical options that are derived from the international feedback of experts within the eMenthe consortium

 

Input at the start

n prioritized central issues n overarching characteristics between the three

core themesn transversal skills. n Attitudes, shared values

This constitutes the content that must be established first from the analysis in workpackage 3 and confirmed in a comparitive analysis after the the literature review

A matrix for the comparative analysis

What knowledge, skills and attitudes are needed as came forward in data from stakeholders

What knowledge, skills and attitudes are needed as came forward in the literature review

Themes Essential issues and Common characteristics

Transversal skills

Attitudes Essential issues and Common characteristics

Transversal skills

Attitudes

Recovery- social inclusion

Mental health promotion and prevention

Family and caregivers

Priorities

Pedagogical principles

On the one hand we have demands on the pedagogic approach from the content: the three themes and the knowledge, skills and attitudes to cope with them.

On the other hand there is the urgence to connect with ‘real life’ situations relevant to the student’ own places of work and existing skills already acquired in professional life (Erasmus requirements)

Erasmus requirements

n The establishment of the Master level eLearning programs should include practice development impact.

n The design of sound curricula and modules for continuous education based on enhancing previous acquired expertise of the Master student.

n Exploring the potential of ICT options to connect students and lecturers internationally, meeting universal accreditation criteria.

The context of Life Long learning/master level

n continuing learningn critical reflectionn Multi-perspectivesn ethical issues

virtual learning environment (VLE)

Learning will be done in a so called virtual learning environment (VLE) that facilitates self-paced learning in an asynchronous training. A VLE has the potency to create and nurture an on-line community of students working independently and with each other. However, the role of an educator functioning as facilitator or tutor is assumed here, but cannot be realized within the terms of the present project.

How to use the potential of dialogue of an interactive online ‘community’?

How does this result in a framework with pedagogical principles?

n Do the aforementioned issues constitute the pedagogical principles that we must find consensus on?

Content-learning objectives-didactic methods

What knowledge, skills and attitudes are needed from the thematic perspective as prioritized in step 3

What is needed from the didactic or learner’s perspective/Life Long Learning

Pedagogical principles Themes Essential issues

and Common characteristics

Transversal skills

Attitudes Real life situations

How to connect with Existing skills

Critical reflection (multiple perspectives and ethical issues)

Other aspects

Recovery- social inclusion

Learning objectives:

Learning objectives:

Learning objectives:

Learning objectives:

Didactic methods

Didactic methods

Didactic methods

Didactic methods

Mental health promotion and prevention

Learning objectives:

Learning objectives:

Learning objectives:

Learning objectives:

Didactic methods

Didactic methods

Didactic methods

Didactic methods

Family and caregivers

Learning objectives:

Learning objectives:

Learning objectives:

Learning objectives:

Didactic methods

Didactic methods

Didactic methods

Didactic methods

Priorities

Step 1

n Dublin meeting:

- deliberation and finding consensus on type of literature review, keywords to

be used, limits and filters, which databases and the use of other languages

beside English.

- discussion and agreement on how to compare findings from the literature

review with the collated findings from data from stakeholders. This will be

translated in instructions to guarantee an uniform way of working.

- Discussion and preliminary decision on pedagogical principles

n The literature search is done in the three workgroups (Recovery/social inclusion led by Theo; Mental health promotion and prevention by Louise and Brian; Family and caregivers by Ingela Timespan: june-september 2014.

Results are collected and sent to the HU. Deadline: 15 september 2014.

Step 2

n The HU collates the results in a matrix as mentioned (figure 1). n Deadline definite concept: 10 october. Collated results can be

used as common framework for articles that are in the process of being written.

Step 3

-(the HU:) Prioritising and selecting content (medium October 2014). Drafting of an outline with listed content (prioritized topics) and learning objectives, overall and per deliminated section.

Deadline: 24 october 2014.

-Consultation with partners on this outline: 24 october-1 november 2014 (online meeting?)

-Consultation on the first draft of the articles for professional journals to assure coherence between them and agreement with a common framework: November 2014 (online meeting?).

Step 4

n -all eMenthepartners collect didactic solutions (these may already have come forward when collecting data in an earlier stage), matching them with the learning objectives in the common framework (matrix in figure 2). Timespan: November 2014.

n -(the HU) Collecting didactic solutions from eMenthepartners and collating them in a finalised didactic framework, combining now content, learning objectives with didactic methods. Deadline: 10 december 2014

n -Consultation on this didactic framework: december 2014.

n -Handing over results to next eMenthe partner: january 2015.

The literature review

The review aims not at finding evidence for the effectivity of interventions, but rather at exploring necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes that professionals need to know and master in order to cope proficiently with the three themes. This determines the relevance of what we hope to find. It means that we have to look for literature in journals that combine the topical (thematic) perspective with the professional perspective.

relevance

The relevance may be further determined by comparing it with findings from the collated data collected with stakeholders.

How to prioritize and select content (in step 3):

Beside relevance

strength of evidence as a selection criterium?

matrix for comparison and determining relevance and strength of evidence.

stakeholders

literature Relevance (outcome of comparison)

Argumentation how relevance has been estimated

Strength of evidence for overall interventions or approaches

Argumentation for strength of evidence

(knowledge of) Essential issues and Common characteristics

Direction of comparison

Vice versa

+ or ++ or +++ or +-

+ or ++ or +++ or -

Transversal skills

idem idem idem idem

Attitudes idem idem idem idem

Process of analysis

Leading questions here are:

1 ‘Is that what is found in the questionnaires and interviews confirmed by findings from literature?’

2 ‘In what way do findings from literature differentiate the picture of professional competences given by stakeholders?’

3 ‘In what way do findings from practice enrich possible theoretical insights (if any)?’

The direction of comparison then is from practice (data from stakeholders) to literature and back again.

The answers can be used for the qualitative argumentation.

The degree of relevance is expressed in +

+ stands for items that are considered moderately important by stakeholders which is confirmed by literature, with frequent mentioning both by stakeholders and in the reviewed articles and fair agreement between stakeholders and literature on aspects

++ stands for items that are considered rather important by stakeholders which is confirmed by literature with frequent mentioning across data and much agreement between stakeholders and literature on aspects

+++ stands for items that are considered very important by stakeholders which is confirmed by literature with frequent mentioning across data and much agreement between stakeholders and literature.

+- stands for items that are considered important by stakeholders which is not confirmed by literature (also when no mentioning). If there is partly confirmation or if an item is considered (much) less important in literature, then please indicate

this with: +%. Use the argumentation column for explanation.

This assessment of relevance must be done for every individual article or publication and in the end, after pooling findings from all 10 publications, as an overall assessment.

Strength of evidence

The elements of competence (knowledge, skills and attitudes) that we have identified as relevant may have strings with or may even be embedded in interventions or approaches for which scientific evidence can be found.

+++ very strong evidence for effectivity, found in systematic reviews and meta-analyses

++ strong evidence found in RCT’s of high quality

+ good evidence found in CCT’s, high level qualitative studies

--no scientific evidence was found

The association of (the elements of) competence with an overall intervention or approach must be made plausible in the argumentation.

The assessment of the strength of evidence is not necessarily found in the publication that is reviewed itself and may be based on references or on other literature known to the reviewer.

keywords

Recovery and social inclusion: nursing, professional skills, empowerment, coaching, support(ive), motivational interviewing, attitudes, norms (combined with theme-specific keywords, e.g.: recovery, social inclusion and keywords deduced from identified essential issues, common characteristics, transversal skills and attitudes: for instance ‘strengths’, ‘resilience’).

Mental health Promotion and Prevention: nursing, professional skills, empowerment, lifestyle, motivational interviewing, (combined with theme-specific keywords, e.g.: self-management, self-efficacy and keywords deduced from identified essential issues, common characteristics, transversal skills and attitudes: for instance ‘collaboration’, ‘goal setting’, ‘self-monitoring’’, ‘empathic understanding).’

Family and caregivers: nursing, professional skills, systemic thinking, councelling, triad, (combined with theme-specific keywords, e.g.: therapeutic alliance and keywords deduced from identified essential issues, common characteristics, transversal skills and attitudes: for instance ‘collaboration’).’

Planning

Timespan: may-september 2014

May-june: literature search and selection of articles and other publications on the basis of abstracts and full text articles. Only full texts should be included after the exclusion process. Number of articles to be included: 10 (or any other number we agree on)

June: dividing reading list among workgroup members. There are two readings for every title. If there is no agreement on relevance score a third reading by a third member of the workgroup follows.

June-1 september: reading and analysis.

September 1st-15 september: who is in the lead of the workgroup, collects the analysis of the 10 publications, is responsible for pooling all findings and making an overall assessment He/she will write an overall summary beside a process report before sending findings to eMenthe partner the HU (deadline: 15 september)

24 october-1 november 2014: Consultation with partners on this outline: (online meeting?)

November 2014: all eMenthepartners collect didactic solutions (they may already have come forward when collecting data in an earlier stage), matching them with the learning objectives in the common framework (matrix in figure 2). Deadline for sending in: I december 2014.

December 2014: collation by the HU and consultation with partners

Writing the article

Tenure of the article: the focus is on competences that professionals need to have in coping with the three themes in such a way that good care is realized, recovery is facilitated and the participation of family or carers is engaged.

Which journal to submit the article to: nursing education journals, rehabilitation journals, family care journals.

Making an overall plan for who does what and when: it is advisable to have the writing process run parallel to the timeplan of the collation process performed by the HU in order to achieve congruence across the three articles and agreement with the common didactic framework that step by step becomes into being.

Consulting other workgroups (via the HU) on common themes, transversal skills and values/attitudes: this can be done by adhering to the common framework

How to tune text to a common framework: see above.