NUR 5223 Module 6 Teaching Philosophy Example

Access, Information and a Way Back In: A Philosophy of Teaching Experienced Nurses Who Are Beginners Again, Grounded in Situated Learning and Self-Determination Theory

Student Name

American College of Education

NUR5223: Theoretical Foundations in Teaching and Learning

Module 6 Assignment

Instructor Name

June 13, 2028

Where I Teach

I coordinate a six-month fellowship that moves experienced nurses from the wards and the intensive care unit into surgery. My learners are adults with years of practice, strong professional identities and a great deal to lose if they fail. They arrive confident and, within two weeks, many feel like new graduates again. This philosophy grew out of watching that happen and trying to respond to it. It is organized around four beliefs: about who my learners are, about what my role is, about the environment they learn in and about how I know they have learned. Each belief is anchored in a theory from this course and in a decision I made because of it.

Learners Are Experts Who Have Lost Their Footing

I believe my learners are not blank slates but experts whose expertise has, for the moment, stopped working. Benner (1982) showed that nursing expertise is bound to familiar situations, so that an expert who moves to a new specialty may perform at a lower level there. That explains what I see: a nurse who has run a code confidently for ten years hesitating over where to stand during a skin prep. The theory also tells me what to do. If expertise is situational, it can be rebuilt in the new situation faster than it was built the first time, because much of the underlying knowledge, anatomy, pharmacology, clinical judgment, is intact and needs to be reconnected rather than relearned.

This belief changed my first decision as coordinator. I stopped opening the fellowship with a month of classroom instruction and placed fellows in real cases in their first week, with preceptors who asked them what they already knew before teaching them anything. The approach draws on the constructivist choice made in Module 1: learning built from experience and connected to what learners bring.

My Role Is to Give Access

I believe my most important job is not to deliver content but to give learners access to the real work of the community they are joining. Lave and Wenger (1991) describe learning as legitimate peripheral participation: newcomers learn by doing real but limited parts of the community's work and moving inward as they become competent. When I watched fellows standing by the door of a busy operating room, I saw learners who were peripheral without being legitimate. They could not see or touch the work.

So my role is to design access. That meant creating the participation ladder, which lays out a sequence of real tasks from room setup to leading the count, and asking preceptors to name each fellow and their tasks at every case's opening briefing, so that the team treats the fellow as a participant. It also means advocating with managers for protected teaching rooms, because access costs time and the organization measures time. Much of my teaching now happens in meetings about schedules, which I did not expect when I became an educator.

Learners Need Information, Not Encouragement

I believe adult learners need to feel competent for a reason. Ryan and Deci (2000) describe competence, alongside autonomy and relatedness, as a basic psychological need whose satisfaction supports intrinsic motivation. When I logged the feedback fellows received, most of it was general praise, which satisfies none of those needs because it carries no information. Hattie and Timperley (2007) found that feedback directed at the person is the least effective kind, and that feedback about the task and the learner's process does the most for learning.

My response was the five-minute post-case routine described in Module 4, in which preceptors ask the fellow's view, name one specific strength and one area to work on, and agree on a goal for the next case. I would rather a fellow leave the room knowing one precise thing to do better than feeling vaguely good about a case they cannot describe. The routine also supports autonomy, because the fellow speaks first and helps set the goal, and relatedness, because it is a conversation rather than a verdict.

I Know They Have Learned When They Can Act

I believe the evidence that learning has happened is performance in real or realistic situations, not recall on a test. My fellows can pass a written quiz on the count procedure and still freeze when a sponge is missing, as two of them told me they did. Assessment in the fellowship therefore centers on observed performance: the tray check before a fellow circulates a procedure, the simulated count discrepancy with a time standard, and preceptor ratings of independent practice at six months. Written tests remain for knowledge that must be exact, but they are not the measure of success. This belief follows from the situated view of learning, in which knowing and doing cannot be separated, and it holds me accountable for creating situations in which learners can show what they can do.

Assessment of this kind also changes how I talk to fellows about their progress. Because each fellow's position on the participation ladder is visible and each step has a clear performance standard, a fellow who asks whether they are on track can see the answer rather than waiting for my opinion. That transparency matters for adults who are used to knowing where they stand. When a fellow falls behind the expected pace, the conversation is about a specific task and what support will help, not a general judgment. Two fellows in the first cohort who had considered leaving told me later that seeing their own progress on the card was what persuaded them to stay.

Where These Beliefs Are Tested, and What I Commit To

My beliefs pull against each other and against the setting. Giving access means placing beginners in real cases where patients are at risk, and I must limit that access with drills and standards for tasks such as counts and aseptic technique, where variation causes harm. Respecting learners' autonomy means letting them direct parts of their learning, yet the fellowship has a fixed timeline and a hospital that needs circulators. And building psychological safety in an operating room with a steep hierarchy depends on surgeons and staff I do not supervise. I do not resolve these tensions once; I resolve them case by case and try to be open with fellows about which one I am favoring and why.

For the coming year, I commit to four things. I will ask each fellow in the first week what they already know that will help them in the operating room, and write it on their participation card. I will observe one post-case feedback conversation for every preceptor each quarter and give them feedback using the same routine. I will review every fellow's first real count discrepancy with them within a day. And I will repeat the feedback log and the psychological safety questionnaire with each cohort, so that my beliefs are tested against what fellows actually experience rather than what I intend.

References

Benner, P. (1982). From novice to expert. American Journal of Nursing, 82(3), 402-407. https://doi.org/10.2307/3462928

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68