Aportes de las ciencias humanas en la formación del ingeniero

Clinical learning has always been an important component of the FSN curricula over the years. Graduates of the FSN were often judged on the basis of their clinical competency in a task oriented work environment. The 2004 curriculum, on the other hand, sought to emphasise a well-rounded competent and critical thinker in its philosophy (Usher, 2003), although the clinical learning hours covered major parts of year three. The use of the competency-based curriculum and its competency assessment tools was a strategy used by the curriculum consultants to realise the clinical objectives of the FSN. This study however uncovered many issues related to the clinical component of the curriculum and its implementation.

153 Ignorance of clinical assessment strategies

The use of clinical competency assessment format was a new development for the FSN teachers. Many teachers did not understand or have any idea of what a competency form looked like. The majority of the teachers had neither the experience of developing a competency assessment form nor using an assessment form for a competency-based curriculum. The curriculum consultant for the implementation of the curriculum described the lack of awareness of the competency assessment strategies as ‘one of the biggest hurdles’ in the whole exercise (JCU 01). She added that apart from the other factors such as the lack of experience in most of the teachers, key staff who were familiar with the curriculum approach were posted out of the school and replaced within six months of the implementation period. This explained the teachers’ lack of preparation for clinical teaching and their general ignorance of the need for assessment tools after the implementation of the curriculum in 2004.

According to the teachers, the NMNP Board of Fiji was aware of the use of the Hong Kong competency model but failed to inform the school on its use in the curriculum (FSN 05). The NMNP Board of Fiji during the initiation stage of the curriculum change gave the Hong Kong model to the JCU team to use in the revised curriculum (JCU 01), but then failed in its responsibility to create awareness amongst the teachers and the clinicians. It was two months into the implementation of the curriculum when the Hong Kong model was made available to the teachers by the MOH, after the teachers began to question the JCU consultants about it.

In December 2004, three months after the implementation of the curriculum, the teachers turned their family Christmas break at the Fijian resort to develop and write competency forms in preparation for use by the students when they returned from their Christmas holidays. A teacher remarked that their frustration and their common need for guidance brought the teachers together to support and teach each other in developing assessment tools for the curriculum.

154

The excursion which took our two day break with our families was sacrificed ahead of the need to have assessment forms by January. However, it was a very sad as we were not supported by our nursing leaders; those that make decisions at the NMNP Board and the school Principal! (FSN 01, p.1)

The teacher added that their intention was to have some clinical assessment tools in hand when the students began their clinical rotation early in the New Year. The writing excursion produced the blue print and the foundational materials for clinical assessments from year one to year three. However, the non-attendance of the head of school and the lack of encouraging words or support from Fiji’s nursing leaders indicated the teachers were on their own in the implementation of the curriculum.

At times, I wondered whose idea it was to change the curriculum; theirs or ours. Or whose curriculum was it? Since its implementation, there has never been a positive comment coming from them. (FSN01, p.1)

Leadership during the implementation stage was invisible according to the participants of this study (FSN 06; FSN 03; FSN 01). The lack of guidance, expert curricula advice and leadership were seen as contributing to the general confusion of the teachers at the FSN. Avoidance of leadership responsibilities or the lack of it during an educational change process constitutes a ‘Bermuda Triangle’ of innovations (M Fullan, 2007). The teachers, without the support of their leaders, found it very difficult to implement the new programme and the non-consultative approach of the MOH towards the teachers made it a very painful experience for many of them.

Management never listened to us; the people that do the work here. It was just listening to outsiders who just came and went. There must have been a big rush to get this curriculum implemented. Even we asked just for a few months to defer it; NO a big NO; we had to do it NOW! Do it for whom? For Australia or who? We are here for the Fijian people; for the people of this country. We want to give these children our best! (FSN 06, p.17)

Management worked in isolation from the teaching staff. Its non-consultative approach was seen as arrogant and showed a lack of respect for the teachers and the people of Fiji.

In the vanua, we would sit and talk and discuss about the equipment, the teaching, the classes and more so for important decisions such as the implementation of the curriculum. (FSN 06, p.15)

According to the teachers, the nursing leaders’ approach to the curriculum change was foreign, especially when the leaders themselves were indigenous Fijians.

155