Advertisement

Advances in Health Sciences Education

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 765–779 | Cite as

What students really learn: contrasting medical and nursing students’ experiences of the clinical learning environment

  • Matilda Liljedahl
  • Lena Engqvist Boman
  • Charlotte Porthén Fält
  • Klara Bolander Laksov
Article

Abstract

This paper explores and contrasts undergraduate medical and nursing students’ experiences of the clinical learning environment. Using a sociocultural perspective of learning and an interpretative approach, 15 in-depth interviews with medical and nursing students were analysed with content analysis. Students’ experiences are described using a framework of ‘before’, ‘during’ and ‘after’ clinical placements. Three major themes emerged from the analysis, contrasting the medical and nursing students’ experiences of the clinical learning environment: (1) expectations of the placement; (2) relationship with the supervisor; and (3) focus of learning. The findings offer an increased understanding of how medical and nursing students learn in the clinical setting; they also show that the clinical learning environment contributes to the socialisation process of students not only into their future profession, but also into their role as learners. Differences between the two professions should be taken into consideration when designing interprofessional learning activities. Also, the findings can be used as a tool for clinical supervisors in the reflection on how student learning in the clinical learning environment can be improved.

Keywords

Clinical learning environment Content analysis Sociocultural learning theory Undergraduate medical education Undergraduate nursing education Workplace learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all the students who willingly shared their experiences with the research group, as well as Asso Prof Erik Björck and Prof Sari Ponzer for their valuable comments on the findings and manuscript. Supported by grants provided by the Stockholm County Council (ALF project) and Karolinska Institutet.

References

  1. Baldwin, D. C, Jr, & Daugherty, S. R. (2008). Interprofessional conflict and medical errors: Results of a national multi-specialty survey of hospital residents in the US. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22(6), 573–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billett, S. (2002). Critiquing workplace learning discourses: Participation and continuity at work. Studies in the Education of Adults, 34(1), 56–67.Google Scholar
  3. Billett, S. (2008). Learning throughout working life: A relational interdependence between personal and social agency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleakley, A., Bligh, J., & Browne, J. (2011). Medical education for the future. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boor, K., Scheele, F., van der Vleuten, C. P., Teunissen, P. W., den Breejen, E. M., & Scherpbier, A. J. (2008). How undergraduate clinical learning climates differ: A multi-method case study. Medical Education, 42(10), 1029–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Dedoose. (2013). Sociocultural research consultants, LCC (Version 4.5). www.dedoose.com: Los Angeles, CA.
  8. Dornan, T., Boshuizen, H., King, N., & Scherpbier, A. (2007). Experience-based learning: A model linking the processes and outcomes of medical students’ workplace learning. Medical Education, 41(1), 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunn, S. V., & Burnett, P. (1995). The development of a clinical learning environment scale. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22(6), 1166–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Genn, J. M. (2001). AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 23 (Part 2): Curriculum, environment, climate, quality and change in medical education—A unifying perspective. Medical Teacher, 23(5), 445–454.Google Scholar
  12. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hafferty, F. W., & Franks, R. (1994). The hidden curriculum, ethics teaching, and the structure of medical education. Academic Medicine, 69(11), 861–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hafler, J. P., Ownby, A. R., Thompson, B. M., Fasser, C. E., Grigsby, K., et al. (2011). Decoding the learning environment of medical education: A hidden curriculum perspective for faculty development. Academic Medicine, 86(4), 440–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, P. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(S1), 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Helmich, E., & Dornan, T. (2012). Do you really want to be a doctor? The highs and lows of identity development. Medical Education, 46(2), 132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Illing, J. (2007). Thinking about research: Frameworks, ethics and scholarship. In T. Swanwick (Ed.), Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory and practice (pp. 283–300). Association for the Study of Medical Education.Google Scholar
  18. Isba, R., & Boor, K. (2011). Creating a learning environment. In T. Dornan (Ed.), Medical education: Theory and practice (pp. 99–114). Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, M., Cowin, L. S., Wilson, I., & Young, H. (2012). Professional identity and nursing: Contemporary theoretical developments and future research challenges. International Nursing Review, 59(4), 562–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  21. Larsson, S. (2009). A pluralist view of generalization in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levett-Jones, T., & Lathlean, J. (2008). Belongingness: A prerequisite for nursing students’ clinical learning. Nurse Education in Practice, 8(2), 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liljedahl, M. (2011). Learning environment from the studentsperspective: A qualitative interview study about the learning environment on two awardee departments. (Degree project for Master, Karolinska Institutet).Google Scholar
  25. Melia, K. M. (1987). Learning and working: The occupational socialization of nurses (Vol. 372): Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Reeves, S., Zwarenstein, M., Goldman, J., Barr, H., Freeth, D., Hammick, M., & Koppel, I. (2008). Interprofessional education: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, 1.Google Scholar
  28. Moulton, C.-A. E., Regehr, G., Mylopoulos, M., & MacRae, H. M. (2007). Slowing down when you should: A new model of expert judgment. Academic Medicine, 82(10), S109–S116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roff, S., McAleer, S., Harden, R. M., Al-Qahtani, M., Ahmed, A. U., et al. (1997). Development and validation of the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM). Medical Teacher, 19(4), 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Säljö, R. (2000). Learning in practice. A socio-cultural perspective. Stockholm: Bokfölaget Prisma.Google Scholar
  31. Snadden, D. (2006). Clinical education: Context is everything. Medical Education, 40(2), 97–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Swanwick, T. (2005). Informal learning in postgraduate medical education: From cognitivism to ‘culturism’. Medical Education, 39(8), 859–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: Sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matilda Liljedahl
    • 1
  • Lena Engqvist Boman
    • 1
  • Charlotte Porthén Fält
    • 1
  • Klara Bolander Laksov
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Unit for Medical Education, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME)Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of EducationStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations