Degree | Type | Year | Semester |
---|---|---|---|
2500891 Nursing | OT | 4 | 0 |
None.
The purpose of the subject is to provide adequate knowledge and skills to evaluate critically the scientific literature of nursing care, from a constructivist and/or an interpretative point of view
Paradigms of research: positivist vs. phenomenological-interpretative.
Introduction to interpretative methodologies: ethnography, phenomenology. Introduction to critical methodologies: investigation-action-participation. Sampling techniques and information saturation. Qualitative techniques of data collection applied to the health-illness-care process. Analysis and coding qualitative data. Criteria of rigor for qualitative research. Critical reading of scientific literature with qualitative methodology.
The different learning methodologies make up both of the theoretical content and of the skills related to critical thinking in the decision-making process in health-illness process. In the classroom practices, the critical analysis of original articles with qualitative methodology will be carried out in groups. Students, if they wish and are committed, may substitute the critical reading of original articles for Service Learning (SL) projects. These projects of social commitment allow the student to be trained through participation in a project aimed at solving a real need in a community and thus improve the living conditions of people or the quality of the environment (for more information http://pagines.uab.cat/aps).
Annotation: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.
Title | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|
Type: Directed | |||
CLASSROOM PRACTICES (CPRAC) | 13 | 0.52 | 1, 2, 5, 3, 4, 6 |
THEORY (T) | 12 | 0.48 | 2, 3 |
Type: Supervised | |||
TUTORIALS | 7.5 | 0.3 | 1, 3, 4 |
Type: Autonomous | |||
SELF-STUDY | 41.95 | 1.68 | 1, 5, 4, 6 |
Evaluation criteria: the final grade of the subject is the weighted average of each one of the students evaluative activities: written and oral.
All written and oral evaluation activities are compulsory, in case of non-presentation, they will be classified as non-evaluable (NE) and quantified as zero (0).
The final grade of the subject is the weighted average of the assessment activities, provided when, the mark of each of them is equal to or greater than 4. In the cases that any of the activities of evaluation is less than 4, the resultant numerical mark will be the weighted average according to the previous criteria provided it is less than 5, or will be set to 4.8 provided that the weighted average is greater than 5.
Definition of NOT EVALUABLE: it will be understood by Non-Evaluable (NE) that situation in which the student is NOT Present 50% or more of the evaluation activities.
Review of tests: all students have the right to review the evaluation tests with a previous appointment with the teacher. The review will consist of an individual tutoring where the student will be given the feedback in relation to his assessment.
The eventual treatment of particular cases: It will be carried out from a teaching committee (formed by the coordinator of the subject, and 2 departmental professors who are experts in the subject). This committee will evaluate the situation particular of the student and the most appropriate decisions will be taken.
Students who have not passed the subject by means of the continuous evaluation may submit to one retake exam as much as the student has been assessed for two thirds of the total grade of the subject. This retake exam will include all the subject matter of the subject.
Title | Weighting | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Objective tests: multiple choice questions | 50% | 0.33 | 0.01 | 1, 2, 3 |
Objective tests: multiple choice questions | 5% | 0.05 | 0 | 1, 2, 3 |
Oral defense of written work | 45% | 0.17 | 0.01 | 1, 2, 5, 3, 4, 6 |
No software is used.