Abstract
In this qualitative descriptive study, it was aimed to determine the views of senior nursing undergraduate students on the use of think aloud method in nursing education. The sample of the study consisted of 14 senior students who studied at Hacettepe University Faculty of Nursing in the Spring Semester of the 2020-2021 Academic Year and experienced the think aloud method. Data were collected using the "Descriptive Characteristics Form", "Semi-structured Questionnaire". The qualitative data of the research were analyzed with the inductive analysis method in the MAXQDA 2020 program. Subsequently, the codes were themed. There were three main themes: the students' feelings about the think aloud learning experience, the positive and negative aspects of the think aloud method, and the students' views on the use of the think aloud method in nursing education. For these main themes, six sub-themes were formed:"competence development", "attitudinal learning", "reliability and effectiveness", "learning process”, “gaining attitudinal behaviors”, “factors related to the environment”. In line with the results of the research, it is recommended to use the thinking aloud method in nursing education.
xmlui.mirage2.itemSummaryView.Collections
xmlui.dri2xhtml.METS-1.0.item-citation
1. Abbaszade A, Borhani F, Sabzevari S. Nursing teachers´ perception of the challenges of clinical education and solutions: A Qualitative Study. J Qual Res Health Sci 2013;2: 134–45.
2. Kajander-Unkuri S, Meretoja R, Katajisto J, Saarikoski M, Salminen L, Suhonen R, et al. Self-assessed level of competence of graduating nursing students and factors related to it. Nurse Educ Today 2014; May,34(5):795–801.
3. HUÇEP. Hemşirelik Ulusal Çekirdek Eğitim Programı. 2022 [Erişim Tarihi 28 Haziran 2022]
4. HEPDAK. Hemşirelik Eğitim Programlarını Değerlendirme ve Akreditasyon Derneği. 2013 [Erişim Tarihi 10 Şubat 2021] Erişim adresi: http://www.hepdak.org.tr
5. EUNetPaS. A General Guide for Education and Training in Patient Safety. 2010Erişimadresi:http://www.eupatient.eu/globalassets/projects/eunetpas/guidelines_final_22-06-2010.pdf?id=5414&epslan-guage=en [Erişim tarihi: 20 Ocak 2020]
6. Kim YM, Yoon YS, Hong HC, Min A. Effects of a patient safety course using a flipped classroom approach among undergraduate nursing students: A quasi-experimental study, Nurse Educ Today. 2019;79: 180-187 May 23.
7. J.I. Hwang, T.Y. Yoon, H.J. Jin, Y. Park, J.Y. Park, B.J. Lee. Patient safety competence for final-year health professional students: perceptions of effectiveness of an interprofessional education course, J. Interprof. Care, 2016, 30 (6) pp. 732-738.
8. McMullan M, Jones R, Lea S. Patient safety: numerical skills and drug calculation abilities of nursing students and registered nurses. 2010, Apr;66(4):891-9.
9. D Aygin, H Cengiz. İlaç uygulama hataları ve hemşirenin sorumluluğu, Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni 2011; 45 (3), 110-114.
10. Fracica PJ, Wilson S, Chelluri LP. Patient safety. In: Varkey P, editor. Medical quality management theory and practice. London: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2010; p. 43-73.
11. Bulut, S. Mapping properties of some classes of analytic functions under certain integral operators. Journal of Mathematics, vol.2013, 1-7.
12. Arslan, A. Sağlık Hizmetleri Meslek Yüksekokulu Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Kaygıları ve Genel Öz-Yeterlik Algılarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi, International e-Journal of Educational Studies (IEJES), 2019, Volume 3 Issue 6, 78-96.
13. Ternov S. The Human side of medical mistakes. In: Spath LP, editor. Error reduction in health care a systems approach to improving patient safety. 2nd ed. USA: Jossey-Bass; 2011. p. 21-34.
14. Bastable SB. Nurse as educator: Principles of teaching and learning for nursing practice. 3. Baskı. United States of America: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2008. Instructional Methods and Settings, s. 431-468.
15. Billings DM, Halstead JA. Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty. 3. Baskı. Elsevier Health Sciences; Strategies to Promote Critical Thinking and Active Learning, 2012, s. 238-257.
16. Popil I. Promotion of critical thinking by using case studies as teaching method. Nurse Education Today. 2011;31(2):204-207.
17. Chenot TM, Daniel LG. Frameworks for patient safety in the nursing curriculum, Journal of Nursing Education, 2010.
18. Whyte J. Cormier E. & Pickett-Hauber R. Cognitions and Clinical Performance: A Comparison of High and Low Performing Baccalaureate Nursing Students, January 2010International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 7(1): Article27
19. Abbaszade A, Sabeghi H, Borhani F, Heydari A. A comparative study on effect of e-learning and instructor-led methods on nurses’ documentation Competency. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2011 Summer; 16(3): 235–243.
20. Mousavinasab E.S, Rostam S, Kalhori N, Zarifsanaiey N, Rakhshan M, Ghazisaeedi M. Nursing process education: A review of methods and characteristics. Nurse Education in Practice, Volume 48, October 2020, 102886.
21. Okuyama A, Martowirono K, Bijnen B, Assessing the patient safety competencies of healthcare professionals: a systematic review, Bmj Journals, 2011, Volume 20, Issuse 11.
22. Tebbs O, Hutchinson A, Lau R, Botti M. Evaluation of a blended learning approach to developing specialty-nursing practice. An exploratory descriptive qualitative study, Nurse Education Today, Volume 98, March 2021, 104663.
23. Korhan EA, Tokem Y, Yılmaz DU, Dilemek H. Hemşirelikte psikomotor beceri eğitiminde video destekli öğretim ve osce uygulaması: bir müdahale paylaşımı. İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi 2016; 1(1): 35-37.
24. Dikmen Y, Ak B, Yıldırım Usta Y, Ünver V, Akın Korhan E, Cerit B, Yönder Ertem M. Effect of peer teaching used in nursing education on the performance and competence of students in practical skills training. International Journal of Educational Sciences 2017; 16 (1-3): 14-20
25. B. Simmons, D. Lanuza, M. Fonteyn, F. Hicks, K. Holm. Clinical reasoning in experienced nurses. Western J. Nurs. Res. 2003, 25 (6), pp. 701-719.
26. Kassirer J.P Kopelman R.I. Learning Clinical Reasoning. Williams and Wilkins. Baltimore, 1991.
27. Lee A., Kelley C., Alfes C., Bennington L., Dolansky M. High-Fidelity Patient Simulation to Evaluate Student Nurse Patient Safety Competency, Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 2017, Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages 628-633.
28. Koro-Ljungberg, M., Douglas, E., Therriault, D., Malcolm, Z., & McNeill, N. Reconceptualizing and decentering think-aloud methodology in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 2013, 13, 735-753.
29. Forsberg E, Ziegert K, Hult H, & Fors U. Clinical reasoning in nursing, a think-aloud study using virtual patients—A base for an innovative assessment. Nurse Education Today. 2014,34. pp; 538-542.
30. Taylor C. Problem-solving in clinical nursing practice. J. Adv. Nurs. 1997, 26, pp. 329-336.
31. Calleja, Pauline, Nash, Robyn, Tippett, Vivienne C., Harvey, Theresa, Wirihana, Lisa & Malouf, Naomi. Using the 'think aloud' strategy to improve clinical reasoning in high-fidelity case-based simulation for undergraduate nursing students, 2012, Cambridge Jill Rodgers Associates University, Cambridge, UK.
32. Burbach, B. Barnason, S. & Thompson S.A. Using “Think aloud” to capture clinical reasoning during patient simulation. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 2015, 12, 318-325.https://doi. org/10.1515/ijnes-2014-0044.
33. Verkuyl M. Hughes M. Fyfe M. Using Think Aloud in Health Assessment: A Mixed-Methods Study, Journal of Nursing Education ,2018, Vol. 57, No.11.
34. Eccles D.W. The think aloud method: what is it and how do I use it? Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health Journal, 26 May 2017, pp: 514-531.
35. TDK. Türk Dil Kurumu. 2019 [Erişim Tarihi 10 Haziran 2022] Erişim adresi: https://www.tdk.gov.tr/
36. Sönmez V. Öğretim İlke ve Yöntemleri. 6. Baskı. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık, 2011. Eğitim ve Öğeleri, s. 5-13.
37. Ertürk S. Eğitimde program geliştirme. 6. Baskı. Ankara: Meteksan Yayınları; 1972.
38. Mete S, Uysal N. Hemşirelik mesleksel beceri eğitiminde bir model uygulaması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Elektronik Dergisi. 2009;2(3):115-123
39. Ahn H, Kim HY. Implementation and outcome evaluation of high-fidelity simulation scenarios to integrate cognitive and psychomotor skills for Korean nursing students. Nurse Education Today. 2015;35(5):706-711.
40. Kılıç Akça N, Taşçı S. Hemşirelik eğitimi ve eleştirel düşünme. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2009;5(2):187-195.
41. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Program Amacı 2019, (Avalible from: http://akts.hacettepe.edu.tr/program_detay.php?birim_ref=AKDBRM_0000000000000000000000218&birim_kod=567&prg_oid=PRGRAM_0000000000000000000000030&prg_kod=567&programduzey=2&submenuheader=2 [Erişim Tarihi: 31.08.2020]
42. Gazi Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Bölümü Eğitimsel ve Profesyonel Amaçlar ve Hedefler (Avalible from: http://sbf-hem.gazi.edu.tr/posts/view/title/egitimsel-ve-profesyonel-amaclar%2C-hedefler-70122 [Erişim Tarihi: 31.08.2020]
43. Benner P. From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Prentice Hall Health: 2001, New Jersey; pp. 13-34.
44. Jeppesen KH, Christiansen S, Frederiksen K. Education of student nurses- A systematic literature review. Nurse Education Today. 2017;55:112-121.
45. Karadağ M, Akman N, Demir C. Hemşirelik hizmetlerinde yönetsel ve örgütsel sorunlar. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2013;16(1):16-26.
46. Kaya H, Akçin E. Öğrenme biçemleri/stilleri ve hemşirelik eğitimi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksek Okulu Dergisi. 2002;6(2):31-36.
47. Marquis BL, Huston CJ. Leadership roles and management functions in nursing. 7th edition. Kalifornia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. Bölüm 1, The Critical Triad Decision Making, Management and Leadership, s. 3-29.
48. Jenkins H. Perceptions of decision making among baccalaureate nursing students as measured by the clinical decision making in nursing scale. [Doktora tezi]. United States: University of Maryland; 1983.
49. WHO. Global standards for the initial education of professional nurses and midwives.(2009).Erişimadresi:http://www.who.int/hrh/nursing_midwifery/hrh_global_standards_education.pdf [Erişim Tarihi: 11.06.2021]
50. The International Council of Nurses (ICN). (2019) Patient Safety Erişim adresi: https://www.icn.ch/sites/default/files/inline-files/D05_Patient_Safety_0.pdf [Erişim Tarihi: 30.08.2020]
51. T.C. YÖK. TYYÇ Sağlık Temel Alanı Yeterlilikleri (Akademik Ağırlıklı) 6. Düzey (Lisans Eğitimi). 2010 [Erişim Tarihi 10 Eylül 2020]. Erişim adresi: http://www.tyyc.yok.gov.tr/?pid=48
52. Fukada M. Nursing Competency: Definition, Structure and DevelopmentYonago Acta Med. 2018, Mar; 61 (1): 1-7.
53. Sharpnack PA, Goliat L, Rogers K. Using Standardized patients to teach leadership competencies. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2013;9(3):95-102.
54. Senemoğlu N. Gelişim, Öğrenme ve Öğretim Kuramdan Uygulamaya. 23. Baskı. Ankara: Yargı Yayınevi; 2013. Bölüm 3, Öğretim, s. 379-426.
55. DeYoung S. Teaching Strategies for Nurse Educators. 2 edition. Upper Saddle River: New Jersey Pearson Education; 2009. Planning and conducting classes, s. 89-105.
56. Karadağ M, Erginer E. [Use of the six thinking hatsactivity nursing education]. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi. 2008; 3:26-40.
57. Carter AG, Creedy DK, Sidebotham M. Efficacy of teaching methods used to develop critical thinking in nursing and midwifery undergraduate students: A systematic review of the literature. Nurse Educ Today. 2016; 40:209-18.
58. Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd Ed.). Longman.
59. Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F. & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical approach to modeling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.
60. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. A Bradford Book, London: The MIT Press.
61. Uzun A., Gökkurt Özdemir B., Çetinöz E. E., & Şahan G., Teaching Subtraction with the Think-Aloud Method to a Student with Mild Intellectual Disability. Education and Science, Vol 47 (2022) No 210 321-356.
62. Yılmaz D. (2021). The integration of dynamic assessment and think-aloud method for increasing students' reading comprehension awareness, Yükseklisans Tezi.
63. Baysal Çalışkan M. (2020). Reading comprehension research through think-aloud protocols, Yükseklisans Tezi.
64. Sönmez Y. (2017). Sesli düşünme stratejisinin ilkokul 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama becerilerine etkisi, Yükseklisans Tezi.
65. Rasmussen MU, Nurhan C. (2017). Özel Öğrenme Güçlüğü Olan Bireylere Üstbilişsel Okuduğunu Anlama Stratejilerinin Öğretiminde Sesli Düşünme Yönteminin Etkililiği. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2017, Cilt 17, Sayı 4, 2180 – 2201.
66. Todhunter F. Using concurrent think-aloud and protocol analysis to explore student nurses' social learning information communication technology knowledge and skill development, Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 815–822.
67. Sudiati, H Hanapi, R Bugis (2018). The Effectiveness of Think Aloud Strategy in Students' Reading Achievement, Jurnal Retemena, 2018.
68. Ramachandran A., Huang CM., Gartland E. (2018). Thinking aloud with a tutoring robot to enhance learning, International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, February 2018 Pages 59–68.
69. Adewunmi AT. Olusanya OA. Amosun MD. (2022). Efficacy of think-aloud strategy on the cocktail party effect of pupils with auditory processing disorders, Hearing, Balance and Communication Volume 20, 2022 - Issue 2, Page 89-95.
70. Willis, J. W. (2008). Qualitative research methods in education and education technology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
71. Veer, R. & Zavershneva, E. (2018). The final chapter of Vygotsky's Thinking and Speech: A reader's guide. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 54(2), 101-116.
72. Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge.
73. Gobet, F. (2006). Adriaan de Groot: Marriage of Two Passions. ICGA Journal, 29(4), 236-243.
74. Kucan, L. & Beck, I. (1997). Thinking Aloud and Reading Comprehension Research: Inquiry, Instruction, and Social Interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271-299.
75. Ericsson, K. & Simon, H. J. (1980). Verbal Reports as Data. Psychological Review, 87,215-251.
76. Stratman, J. F. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols: Issues for research. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (Vol. 8, pp. 89-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
77. Chamot, A. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130
78. Womack, R. J. (1991). The effects of Think Aloud on student ability to identify main ideas in reading passages. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
79. Gresty, Karen and Debby Cotton. Using a think-aloud protocol to evaluate an onlineresource for nursing students, December 2005, British Journal of Educational Technology 37(1):45 – 54.
80. Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive process of reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27(1), 44-47.
81. Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 43(7), 442-451.
82. Meyers, J. (1989). Think-Aloud protocol analysis of reading comprehension tactics used by students with reading problems. Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.
83. Farr, R. & Conner, J. (2004). Using think-aloud to improve reading comprehension. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/102
84. Yoshida, M. (2008). Think-aloud protocols and type of reading task: The issue of reactivity in L2 reading research. In M. Bowles (Ed.), Second Language Research Forum (pp. 199 209). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
85. Nisbett, R. & Wilson, W. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84(3): 231–259.
86. Afflerbach, P. P. (2000). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research Vol. 3, (pp. 163-180).
87. Stratman, J. F. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols: Issues for research. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (Vol. 8, pp. 89-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
88. Smagorinsky, P. (2001). Rethinking protocol analysis from a cultural perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21, 233–45.
89. Smith, P. & King J. R. (2013). An Examination of Veridicality in Verbal Protocols of Language Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(5), 709- 720. https://www.maxqda.com/help-mx22/maxmaps/the-code-subcode-segments-model [Erişim Tarihi: 26.06.2021]
90. Erdoğan, S. (2014). Nitel Araştırmalar. Semra Erdoğan, Nursen Nahcivan, Nihal Esin (Ed.), Hemşirelikte Araştırma Süreç, Uygulama ve Kritik içinde (s. 131- 164), İstanbul.
91. Yıldırım A, Şimşek H. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 11.Baskı ed. Ankara, 2018.
92. Tekindal, M. & Uğuz Arsu, Ş. (2020). Nitel araştırma yöntemi olarak fenomenolojik yaklaşımın kapsamı ve sürecine yönelik bir derleme. Ufkun Ötesi Bilim Dergisi, 20 (1), 153- 182.
93. Tong, A. Sainsbury, P. Craig, J. 2007. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 19 (6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
94. Resmi Gazete. Sayı: 28478. Bakanlar Kurulu Kararı:2012/3902, 25 Kasım 2012
95. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Ders Kataloğu 2019, (Avalible from: Http:// http://akts.hacettepe.edu.tr/ders_listesi.php?prg_ref=PRGRAM_0000000000000000000000030&birim_kod=567&submenuheader=2&prg_kod=567 [Erişim Tarihi: 12.08.2020]
96. LeCompte MD, Goetz JP. Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of educational research. 1982;52(1):31-60.
97. Graneheim U.H. & Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness, Nurse education today, Accepted 8 October 2003.
98. Afflerbach, P. P. & Johnston, P. (1984). On the use of verbal reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 16(4), 307-322.
99. Çelik, H., Başer Baykal, N. ve Kılıç Memur, H. N. (2020). Nitel veri analizi ve temel ilkeleri. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi – Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 8(1), 379-406.
100. H Zhang, SHL Goh, XV Wu, W Wang, E Mörelius. Prelicensure nursing students' perspectives on video-assisted debriefing following high fidelity simulation: A qualitative study, Nurse Education Today, 2019.
101. Oster, L. (2001). Using the think-aloud for reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 55, 64-69.
102. Gardin F., Martin M., 2010. The “think-aloud” method to promote student modelling of expert thinking. Athl.Ther. Today 15 (4), 18–21.
103. Alinier G, Hunt B, Gordon R, Harwood C. Effectiveness of intermediate‐fidelity simulation training technology in undergraduate nursing education. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2006;54(3):359-369.
104. Horwood, J., Sutton, E., Coast, J., 2014. Evaluating the face validity of the ICECAP-O capabilities measure: a “think aloud” study with hip and knee arthroplasty patients. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 9, 667–682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9264-4.
105. Schneider, J.F., Reichl, C., 2006. Exploring ease in thinking aloud. Psychol. Rep. 98 (1), 85–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.98.1.85-90.
106. Shumway, M., Sentell, T., Chouljian, T., Tellier, J., Rozewicz, F., Okun, M., 2003. Assessing preferences for schizophrenia outcomes: comprehension and decision strategies in three assessment methods. Ment. Health Serv. Res. 5 (3), 121–135 (http:// dx.doi.org/1522-3434/03/0900-0121/0).
107. Stratman, J.F., Hamp-Lyons, L., 1994. Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols: issues for research. In: Smagorinsky, P. (Ed.), Speaking About Writing: Reflections on Research Methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 89–111.
108. McDonald, S., McGarry, K., Willis, L., 2013. Thinking-aloud about web navigation: the relationship between think-aloud instructions, task difficulty and performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 57(1), pp. 2037–2041.
109. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., 2010. Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research. Sage, London.
110. Banning, M., 2008. The think aloud approach as an educational tool to develop and assess clinical reasoning in undergraduate students. Nurse Education Today 28, 8–14.
111. Kelley, T., Capobianco, B., Kaluf, K., 2014. Concurrent think-aloud protocols to assess elementary design students. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798- 014-9291-y.
