Program Investigation


Narrative Learning

Casey Michelle Schultz

Kathryn L Jones

Cheryl Honkomp

 

Introduction


Humans have always utilized stories as a way to teach, but only in recent history are educators recognizing the role narratives play in our lives.  We have provided two kinds of “stories” as sample narratives to help individuals understand a concept and then a story project celebrating individual stories.  First, we provide a case study, which is a form of storytelling, to describe the use of narrative in an introductory nursing course offered the first semester of freshman year.   Dr. Pam Ironside of IUPUI is referenced in this case study.  Second, we provide a personal account of a training session in a work environment which focuses on generational experiences.  Lastly, we hope you will review a web site about Storycore which is an oral history project to help us understand the lives of others.  All three examples help us to relate to others whether through a case study, a training session, or an individual story.


Case Study:
The first program was created by Ironside (2003) to evaluate the use of Narrative Pedagogy in an introductory nursing course.  The course that was created for the study was entitled Perspectives in Nursing. It was offered to first-semester college freshman for one credit hour. The objective of the course was to employ Narrative Pedagogy “to describe basic principles of nursing and address issues such as entry into practice, employment opportunities, and nursing roles” (Ironside, 2003, p. 123).

            The participants invited to participate in the course that was evaluated by Ironside (2003) were all 14 of the students enrolled in the course. Of these, 11 participated in taking the pretest and nine went on to finish the posttest as well. In addition to the survey that the students completed, there were also nonstructured interviews for students conducted by a transcriptionist who had experience interpreting research. The investigator was the instructor of the course and was not aware of which students chose to participate and which did not.
            The results of the survey and the interviews administered by investigators in the study evaluated by Ironside (2003) varied greatly in answers. For example, on the surveys, students’ response to questions showed a decrease in important factors like the learning environment and the relationships between class members. Researchers expected that relationships between classmates would grow quite significantly because of the personal nature of Narrative Pedagogy, but the survey did not show these results. However, the interviews conducted with students showed the exact opposite. In the interviews, students stated that they really enjoyed the course work and expressed very positive feelings toward the relationships that they were able to foster with their classmates. There were also times when the answers to the questions may reflect the confusing ways that the questions were worded. When students answered that they felt that the lectures were not interesting, this could be attributed to the fact that classes that employ a Narrative Pedagogy rarely have a specific lecture component in the classroom. These findings showed the researchers that they may need to look into new ways to evaluate the courses in the future to help prevent the conflicting answers on the two types of evaluation.
To begin the course in Ironside’s (2003) study, the students and their teacher were given the opportunity to write down and eventually share stories about times in the past when they had cared for a person or been cared for themselves. Students were then encouraged to reflect on these experiences by asking themselves different questions like, “Are the concerns of caregivers the same as the concerns of those receiving care? Did where the care was provided (or received) matter?” (Ironside, 2003, p. 123). Interpreting the stories allowed students to figure out which parts of the profession and caring for individuals is known and what is merely assumed as well as what they can bring with them into the nursing field versus what they still need to learn in order to properly care for patients. Ironside states that this act of sharing stories and then later reflecting upon and interpreting them was a constant throughout the semester. Students and instructors worked together to plan the schedule for what would be addressed in the following class period.
Within the program evaluated by Ironside (2003), sharing experiences and listening to and evaluating the experiences of others are crucial to the success of the program. The entire course was designed to give students a safe environment to share their stories without feeling judged by their classmates. The structure of this course relates well to what Clark (2010) considers to be the three main levels within narrative learning. First, “We learn from hearing stories” (Clark, 2010, p. 5). The point of this entry-level course evaluated by Ironside (2003) was to expose students to stories from other peers and professionals in the field of nursing. A majority of the class was spent sharing past experiences. The second level, “We learn from telling stories” (Clark, 2010, p. 6), was also heavily incorporated into the class. Students in the nursing course were encouraged to both write and share orally their experiences within the field of nursing and even just their experience with caring for other people (Ironside, 2003). The third level, “We learn from stories by recognizing the narratives in which we are positioned” (Clark, 2003, p. 6), was not specifically addressed in the course examined by Ironside (2003), but that could be attributed to the fact that it was an entry-level course that did not allow for students to live in the moment of specific nursing situations. Perhaps, this level could be seen if the program were to continue with a Narrative Pedagogy outside of entry-level courses.
The most important factors that I would like to take from the course evaluated by Ironside (2003) would be the mixture of written and oral stories, the collaboration between the professor and the students on content, and the problems that they had with effective evaluation techniques. It is important to incorporate a written component into Narrative Pedagogy in order to get honest answers out of participants. There may be times when a student has a very relevant example to share, but may not feel comfortable telling this story to a room full of classmates with whom he or she does not have an established relationship. The set-up of the class allowed for students to play a big role in the topics that would be discussed. Involving the students in the planning process could lead to discussions on topics that the professor may not have thought to cover. With regards to evaluation, it would be important to use an effective device in order to find out what to improve for future course work. The course evaluated by Ironside (2003), had problems with conflicting results from surveys and interviews. Because courses taught with a Narrative Pedagogy focus so much on sharing experience, I think it would be beneficial to use an evaluation that incorporates that as well. The interview process used by investigators gave students the chance to discuss what they felt they learned throughout the semester, share stories about friendships with classmates as well as their feelings toward the professor and the way that the course was taught. However, these interviews were conducted by a third party who allowed the students to feel that they were in a safe environment and would not be punished for any negative remarks that they may make. This seems like an excellent way to evaluate a course of this nature.
Ironside, P. M. (2003). Trying something new: Implementing and evaluating narrative pedagogy using a multimethod approach. Nursing Education Perspectives, 24, 122-128.
Clark, M.C. (2010). Narrative learning: Its contours and its possibilities. New Directions for          Adult and Continuing Education, 126, 3-11. doi: 10.1002/ace.367
Personal account:
Every quarter my job holds group staff meetings. Some of these meeting include training on different area affecting our job. Recently at my job, we had a Diversity training meeting.  This training was lead by the Department Manager with assistance from the Office Manager and team managers.  The training was for the entire office of workers which has male and female learners and covers all ages groups. The main objective of the training was to make the staff aware of age diversity and how to effectively work with people of different ages either as co-workers or clients.
To begin the training, each person was given a Generational Quiz (pretest).  After taking the quiz, each person is able to see which generation (Traditionalist, Baby Boomer, Gen X’ers, and Millennial/Gen Y’ers) they would or may fall under.  The training then began with our trainer (Department Manager) discussing the Traditionalist generation. She explained the characteristics of a person born during that era. She also explained the way people from this generation see management, are loyal to their employer and their work and believed individual performance reviews are not needed as long as they are loyal and do their work.  While the training group did not have anyone from the Traditionalists generation within it, some class members started telling stories of their experiences with their parents from this generation.  They were able to explain how their parents work ethic and loyalty to their employer was just as it was explained by the trainer. The training continued by going through all the other generational eras from the two groups within the Baby Boomer era and ending with the Millennial/Gen Y’ers. After each era was discussed and explained, the trainer opened the floor for group discussion and sharing of our thoughts and comments. Two to three people would share stories about the different era that was discussed. Some people would comment about how that was exactly how they are and the description about the generation they belonged in was how they are at work. At the end of the generational discussions, the trainer was able to bring the whole discussion together to explain that we have to approach each person differently. She explained that understanding the different generations will help us with our jobs and how we communicate with co-workers and clients.
This program was designed to include interaction with the class members.  The approach was to see what we knew about ourselves, teach us about our generation and other generation and show us how we can use that knowledge in dealing with individuals in the workplace. Merriam, Caffarella and Baumgartner (2007) tell us that using stories to engage students in ideas that are part of course content may be the only way to allow understanding to occur. They continue to say that it is also a powerful means of making connections not only with ideas but with other learners, perhaps ultimately creating a learning community. This training program and previous ones have been interactive and given the learners time to comment with stories and experiences as it relates to the subject.  By allowing the interaction and open comments, the training program display narrative learning because we were able to learn about the generation not only through the trainer but hearing the stories from the learners within the group. Storytelling is one of the narrative learning forms used in this program because it allowed the learners to engage with each other while also learning about the different generation. I believe the best feature of this program to use in other programs is the interaction and ability to share stories with other learners. Stories allow learners to be more comfortable with the subject being taught and are able to relate and find common factors with other learners. When a learners can find a common ground in their learning, they are able to better understand it and use the new knowledge in future incidents on their job and in their life.
Reference
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A  comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
 
Individual Stories:
StoryCore is an attempt to capture oral stories of the ordinary person. In 2003, a booth with recording equipment was set up in New York City and people were invited to come and tell their stories, any story, whether good or bad, but stories of individuals in our society.  Since 2003, StoryCore has expanded nationwide. Stories are preserved at the Library of Congress.   A quote from their web site helps us understand the mission of the StoryCore program:  “We do this to remind one another of our shared humanity, strengthen and build the connections between people, teach the value of listening, and weave into the fabric of our culture the understanding that every life matters. At the same time, we will create an invaluable archive of American voices and wisdom for future generations.”
As with the case study, and in the workplace training session, stories enable us to understand each other better.  Will listening to the experiences of others help us to better understand ourselves? 




No comments:

Post a Comment