Background
Standards contribute to comprehensive and programmatic implementation of educational strategies, such as scaffolding. Although the development of educational standards follows a rigorous consensus approach, they are socially constructed and could result in varied interpretations by users. Reports of varied implementation of standards in health professions education underscore the need to test the developed standards for scaffolding in health sciences programmes. Usability entails determining whether a product like standards works as intended under the expected conditions and contexts. This study aimed to describe the usability of standards for scaffolding in a health sciences programme through a pilot study.
Methods
A multi-method design employing user and expert-based usability evaluation techniques sought to describe the usability of the standards for scaffolding in a three-year pre-registration nursing programme. The user sample of nurse educators drawn from the programme, conducted a self-assessment on scaffolding practices in the programme using a developed standards checklist. For the expert sample, three-panel members with an understanding of the discipline and programme context were purposively sampled. These panelists studied the users’ self-assessment reports before completing an author-generated heuristics checklist to support or refute any of the standards. Descriptive statistics, comparative and content analysis were applied to analyse data from users’ interviews and expert’s completed heuristics checklist, determining the standards’ usability, and identifying the usability flaws or strengths.
Results
The users had three or more years of teaching experience in the competency-based curriculum for nursing. The experts shared an average of 16 years of experience in teaching in higher education, and seven years of experience in quality assurance and programme accreditation. The four standards had a usability score of above average (68%). Seven usability strengths and four usability flaws were identified. Usability flaws related to misinterpretation of some criteria statements and terminologies, multiple meanings, and users’ challenges in generating evidence for some criteria.
Conclusions
The pilot study revealed the context-based ‘truth’ regarding the fidelity of a health sciences programme evaluation on scaffolding, as well as identifying the ideal contextual conditions in which the standards for scaffolding health sciences programmes would work best. The identified usability flaws highlighted the need for further revisions of the standards. Future research on the feasibility of the standards in other health sciences programmes and contexts is recommended.
