Developing Curriculum: Nursing Students’ Involvement in Skills Training Design

  • Cecilie Haraldseid-DriftlandEmail author
  • Ingunn Aase
  • Karina Aase


Through new policy initiatives and a growing literature within higher education students are called for, not only to be consulted during the development of learning strategies, but also to become actively involved as co-designers, co-producers, and co-creators of their own learning. Despite the growing focus, student involvement is often limited to the use of representatives rather than actively taking part in development processes. The goal of active user involvement is to place user needs at the centre of the design process and thus view the user as a knowledgeable and critical partner in learning. While the idea of user involvement already is an established best practice within health care services, nursing and medical educations have only to some extent actually embraced student involvement. Student experiences have, however, been deemed valuable for future educational improvement, and student involvement has been used in some curriculum design. There is also a comprehensive literature on student use, benefits, barriers, and their experiences with already developed training programs and devices. On the other hand, there is a shortage of descriptive studies that examine the role of the students as they are involved in designing their own learning activities. This chapter therefore sets out to describe two examples of how nursing and medical students are involved in different curriculum development aspects; a technological learning tool for clinical skills training in nursing, and an interprofessional training session for medical and nursing students.


Student involvement Active participation Interprofessional training Learning tools Clinical skills Nursing Medical Education 


  1. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bate, P., & Robert, G. (2007). Bringing user experience to healthcare improvement: The concepts, methods and practices of experience-based design. Abingdon, UK: Radcliffe Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bovill, C., & Bulley, C. J. (2011). A model of active student participation in curriculum design: Exploring desirability and possibility. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving Student Learning (ISL) 18: Global theories and local practices: Institutional, disciplinary and cultural variations. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  4. Brooman, S., Darwent, S., & Pimor, A. (2015). The student voice in higher education curriculum design: Is there value in listening? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(6). Scholar
  5. Button, D., Harrington, A., & Belan, I. (2014). E-learning & information communication technology (ICT) in nursing education: A review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 34(10), 1311–1323. Scholar
  6. Carey, P. (2013). Student as co-producer in a marketised higher education system: A case study of students’ experience of participation in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(3), 250–260. Scholar
  7. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Ministers of Education. (1999). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  9. Fenton, G. (2014). Involving a young person in the development of a digital resource in nurse education. Nurse Education in Practice, 14(1), 49–54. Scholar
  10. Freeth, D., & Fry, H. (2005). Nursing students’ and tutors’ perceptions of learning and teaching in a clinical skills centre. Nurse Education Today, 25(4), 272–282. Scholar
  11. Happell, B., Byrne, L., McAllister, M., Lampshire, D., Roper, C., Gaskin, C. J., … Hamer, H. (2014). Consumer involvement in the tertiary-level education of mental health professionals: A systematic review. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 23(1), 3–16. Scholar
  12. Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hilton, P., & Pollard, C. (2004). Supporting clinical skills developments. Nursing Standard, 18(35), 31–36. Scholar
  14. Jeffries, P. R., Rew, S., & Cramer, J. M. (2002). A comparison of student-centered versus traditional methods of teaching basic nursing skills in a learning laboratory. Nursing Education Perspectives, 23(1), 14.Google Scholar
  15. Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Do we need teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning? Instructional Science, 43(2), 309–322. Scholar
  16. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2010). An approach to participatory instructional design in secondary education: An exploratory study. Educational Research, 52(1), 45–59. Scholar
  17. Mancuso-Murphy, J. (2007). Distance education in nursing: An integrated review of online nursing students’ experiences with technology-delivered instruction. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(6), 252–260.Google Scholar
  18. McKeown, M., & Carey, L. (2015). Editorial: Democratic leadership: A charming solution for nursing’s legitimacy crisis. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24(3–4), 315–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2008). Rammeplan for sykepleierutdanning (National curriculum Regulations for Nursing programs). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.Google Scholar
  20. Papathanasiou, I. V., Tsaras, K., & Sarafis, P. (2013). Views and perceptions of nursing students on their clinical learning environment: Teaching and learning. Nurse Education Today, 34(1), 57–60. Scholar
  21. Ponzer, S., Hylin, U., Kusoffsky, A., Lauffs, M., Lonka, K., Mattiasson, A. C., & Nordström, G. (2004). Interprofessional training in the context of clinical practice: Goals and students’ perceptions on clinical education wards. Medical Education, 38, 727–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Raman, J. (2015). Mobile technology in nursing education: Where do we go from here? A review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 35(5), 663–672. Scholar
  23. Reeves, S., Perrier, L., Goldman, J., Freeth, D., & Zwarenstein, M. (2013). Interprofessional education: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (update). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013(3), Art. No.: CD002213.Google Scholar
  24. Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. Scholar
  25. Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education. Critical teaching for social change. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Thistlethwaite, J. (2012). Interprofessional education: A review of the context, learning and the research agenda. Medical Education, 46, 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tremayne, P., Russell, P., & Allman, H. (2014). Service user involvement in nurse education. Nursing Standard, 28(22), 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wellard, S. J., & Heggen, K. M. (2010). Are laboratories useful fiction? A comparison of Norwegian and Australian undergraduate nursing skills laboratories. Nursing & Health Sciences, 12(1), 39–44. Scholar
  29. Wellard, S. J., Solvoll, B.-A., & Heggen, K. M. (2009). Picture of Norwegian clinical learning laboratories for undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Education in Practice, 9(4), 228–235. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilie Haraldseid-Driftland
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ingunn Aase
    • 1
  • Karina Aase
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Health SciencesCentre for Resilience in Healthcare, University of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations