Evaluating the Debriefer through the Debriefing for Meaningful learning Evaluative Rubric

Abstract

Session presented on Monday, July 27, 2015: Purpose: Teaching is a complex process impacted by many contextual factors. The evaluation of teaching ability has largely remained linked to student achievement of learning outcomes rather than to the observed effectiveness of the teacher. There is a paucity of research investigating teaching effectiveness or the ability of a teacher to implement evidence-based strategies. While measurement of any aspect of the teaching process is challenging, one approach is to evaluate observable teaching behaviors. Debriefing is a common, time-limited strategy during which investigators can evaluate teaching. The literature reflects efforts to evaluate debriefing focus solely on the presence/absence of elements of debriefing, yet, absent from these elements of evaluation is the debriefer's ability to implement an evidence-based debriefing method. Debriefing for Meaningful learning (DML) is a debriefing method that has been found to promote thinking like a nurse through reflective learning. Despite wide-spread adoption of DML by nurse educators, little is known about how well it is being implemented. To assess the effectiveness of DML implementation, an evaluative rubric (DMLER) was developed. Methods: The aim of this pilot study is to test if a formative evaluative rubric anchored in the framework of DML measures a debriefer's ability to implement the process and elements of DML. Through observation of recorded simulation debriefing sessions, DML expert raters will behaviorally score four debriefing sessions of three faculty who have been formally trained in the DML method, and have used DML in simulation debriefing for a minimum of two years. Data will be statistically analyzed to evaluate interrater reliability, item discrimination, and validity of the rubric. Results: The findings of this study yield reliable data for the evaluation of nurse educator simulation debriefings with prelicensure nursing students. Conclusion: Future testing of the DMLER would be required prior to use in clinical, lab, and didactic settings. Future research to correlate teaching ability, as measured with the DMLER, with changes in clinical reasoning of prelicensure nursing students will inform nurse educators in advancing teaching strategies, teaching ability, and facilitating the development of clinical reasoning in prelicensure nursing students. Future testing of the DMLER to be used as an adjunct in equipping teachers to use the DML method.