Critical Thinking Strategies
Case Study
Angela Broughton, Claudette Johnson,
Deborah Knutson, Eileen Padilla &
Danica Stout
Grand Canyon University
NUR: 649E Nursing Education Seminar II
Professor Jacquie Lisicki
May 22, 2013
Learner Objectives
Upon completion of
the program,
participants will be
able to:
Describe the
pathophysiology of
CHF and how the
diagnosis of CHF
is determined.
Learner Objectives
 Explain
the difference between
systolic and diastolic heart failure and
the importance of assessing left
ventricular function in
suspected CHF patients
Learner Objectives
 Describe
the role of appropriate
medications for CHF patients
 Identify
the components of
appropriate discharge planning for
CHF patients.
Evaluation Methods for Objectives
 Observation
 Participation
Evaluation Methods for Objectives
 Pre/Post
Test
 Diagram
fill-in
Evaluation Methods for Objectives
 Interactive
Case Scenarios
 Simulation
Lab
Evaluation
Advantages & Disadvantages
Observation
Participation
Advantages
Disadvantages
Immediate
feedback
Potential for
distorted
data
Assess
Attitude and
Values
Biased
Opinion
Immediate
mediation
Costly
Stressful
Advantages
Disadvantages
Easy
preparation
Evaluator
bias
Inexpensive
Perceived
threatening
Immediate
Feedback
Evaluation
Advantages & Disadvantages
Pre & Post Test
Advantages
Disadvantages
Diagram
Advantages
Disadvantages
Efficient
assessment
Creates
pressure
and stress
Good for
visual
students
Advantage to
artistic
students
Assess
performance
and
knowledge
Lack of
confidence
Compact way
to convey
information
Frustrating
for concrete
learners
Interesting,
convincing,
forceful
Time
consuming &
technical
Quick way to
visualize
information
Costly
Illness day
of exam
not true
measure of
knowledge
Evaluation
Advantages & Disadvantages
Interactive Case Scenarios
Advantages
Participatory
Assess
problem solving
skills
Application of
knowledge and
skill
Disadvantages
Lack of relevance
to situation for
some
Insufficient
information
causes
inaccurate result
Simulation Lab
Advantages
Realistic,
Interactive
Immediate
Specific
Feedback
Integrate
theory and
practice
Promotes
independence
Disadvantages
Expensivecostly
software and
demand
trained staff
Limited group
per scenario
Scheduling
and Logistic
issues
Limiting to
some
students
Acceptable Outcomes
Pre & Post Designed Testing- Cognitive
Domain
 Does not pre-determine how a student can
learn, however can determine knowledge
base
 Analyzes conclusions drawn from the
information in lecture form.
 Assesses knowledge learned in the class (in
post testing).
Acceptable Outcomes
Observation & Simulation- Psychomotor
Domain
 Teach, learn and practice
 Safe environment
 Encourages close interaction in learning
 Ultimate level is at skill performanceautomatic without practice needed.
Acceptable Outcomes
Participation/Discussion- Audio Domain
 Active learning should be encouraged
 Discuss CHF in a report of the consequences
on diet and medication non-compliance
 Discuss in this same report that patient
contribution and taking action in diet and
medications make a big difference in how
they feel.
Assessment Model for Evaluation
Design

CIPP Decision-Oriented Evaluation
Framework
Context
Input
Process
Product
CIPP Evaluation Model

Context Evaluation
–
–
–
Identify target population
Needs assessment (pre/post testing, observation)
Textbook knowledge applied to practice
CIPP Evaluation Model

Input Evaluation
–
Identifies & assesses:
 System capabilities
 Alternative program strategies
 Procedural designs for implementation
 Student plan of care & interventions
CIPP Evaluation Model

Process Evaluation
–
–
–
–
Detects defects
Advantages vs. disadvantages
Evaluate performance, time
management, documentation
Simulation-Educators can
observe & intervene
CIPP Evaluation Model

Product Evaluation
–
–
–
Collect description/Analysis of Outcomes
Prioritization of goals and outcomes
Interpret results
Conclusion



Evaluation is accomplished through
observation, participation, pre/post testing,
diagrams, case studies, and simulation.
Effective evaluation strategies must consider
the purpose, advantages and disadvantages
of the evaluation tool.
CIPP Evaluation Framework-measures
weaknesses/strengths, provides alternative
options/information for decision makers
References
Anderson, O. C. (2010). A Study of Teacher-Mediated Enhancement of Students’ Organization of Earth Science Knowledge Using
Web Diagrams as a Teaching Device. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 21, 683-701.
Ari, A. (2009). The effect of quizzing on learning as a tool of assessment. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences , 8 (27), 202.
Billings, D. M., & Halstead, J. A. (2012). Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty (4th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier-Saunders.
Carmichael, E., & Farrell, H. (2012). Evaluation of the effectiveness of online resources in developing student critical thinking:
Review of literature and case study of a critical thinking online site [Journal]. Journal of University Teaching and Learning
Practice, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ974914.pdf
Clifton, S. L. & Schriner, C.L. (2010). Assessing the quality of multiple choice test items. Nursing Educator, 35(1). 25-34.
Flannelly, L. T. (2001). Using feedback to reduce students’ judgment bias on test questions. Journal of Nursing Education, 40. 10-16.
Founds, S. Z. (2011). Development of high-fidelity simulated clinical experiences for baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of
Professional Nursing , 27 (1), 5-9.
Garrett, B. , MacPhee, M., & Jackson, C. (2010). High-fidelity patient simulation: Considerations for effective learning. Nursing
Education Perspectives, 31(5), 309-313.
Hall, M., Daly, B., & Madigan, E. (2010). Use of anecdotal notes by clinical nursing faculty: a descriptive study. The Journal Of
Nursing Education, 49(3), 156-159. doi:10.3928/01484834-20090915-03
Hill, C. (2006). Integrating clinical experience into the concept mapping process. Nurse Educator, 31(1). 36-39.
Jeffries, P. (2007). Simulation in nursing education: From conceptualization to evaluation. New York, NY: National League for
Nursing.
Oermann, M.H., Yarbrough, S. S., Saewert, K. J., Ard, N., & Charasika,M. E. (2009). Clinical evaluations and grading practices in
schools of nursing: National survey findings Part II. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(6). 352-357.
Pacsi, A. (2008). Human simulators in nursing education. Journal of the New York State Nurses' Association , 39 (2), 8-11.
Polit, D. F. & Beck, C.T. (2006). Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins.
Reed, S. J. (2010). Designing a simulation for student evaluations using Scriven’s key evaluation checklist. Clinical Simulation in
Nursing, 6(2). 41-44.
Vetter, R. E. (2009). Learning to be an effective teacher: strengthening observational skills. Missouri Journal of Health, Physical
Education, Recreation, and Dance , 19, 4-14.
Williams, S. M. & Beattie, H. J. (2006). Problem based learning in the clinical setting- A systemic review. Nurse Education Today,
28(2). 146-154.