Journal of Nursing Education

The articles prior to January 2012 are part of the back file collection and are not available with a current paid subscription. To access the article, you may purchase it or purchase the complete back file collection here

Editorial 

The Curriculum Revolution Revisited

Christine A. Tanner, PhD, RN

  • Journal of Nursing Education. 2007;46(2)
  • Posted February 1, 2007

Abstract

EXCERPT

It has been nearly 20 years since the National League for Nursing (NLN) launched its educational reform effort referred to as the Curriculum Revolution. It called for a transformation in the design of nursing programs, in the decisions regarding content selection, and in the ways in which student learning was facilitated. Rejecting the long-standing, content-loaded, behaviorist model of nursing education, revolutionaries called for a “caring” curriculum, creating new pedagogies suited for a practice discipline and preparing students who could participate as leaders in health care reform, with values that recognized the multicultural, multiracial, and growing diversity of both individual and family lifestyles in our society. Since that time, many schools have sought to implement innovative programs. Yet, as the NLN (2003) has recently concluded, much of this “innovation” has focused on the addition or rearrangement of content within the curriculum—in Bevis’ (1988) words “switch, swap, and slide content around” (p. 27)—rather than on significant, paradigm shift-type changes.

Abstract

EXCERPT

It has been nearly 20 years since the National League for Nursing (NLN) launched its educational reform effort referred to as the Curriculum Revolution. It called for a transformation in the design of nursing programs, in the decisions regarding content selection, and in the ways in which student learning was facilitated. Rejecting the long-standing, content-loaded, behaviorist model of nursing education, revolutionaries called for a “caring” curriculum, creating new pedagogies suited for a practice discipline and preparing students who could participate as leaders in health care reform, with values that recognized the multicultural, multiracial, and growing diversity of both individual and family lifestyles in our society. Since that time, many schools have sought to implement innovative programs. Yet, as the NLN (2003) has recently concluded, much of this “innovation” has focused on the addition or rearrangement of content within the curriculum—in Bevis’ (1988) words “switch, swap, and slide content around” (p. 27)—rather than on significant, paradigm shift-type changes.

EXCERPT

It has been nearly 20 years since the National League for Nursing (NLN) launched its educational reform effort referred to as the Curriculum Revolution. It called for a transformation in the design of nursing programs, in the decisions regarding content selection, and in the ways in which student learning was facilitated. Rejecting the long-standing, content-loaded, behaviorist model of nursing education, revolutionaries called for a “caring” curriculum, creating new pedagogies suited for a practice discipline and preparing students who could participate as leaders in health care reform, with values that recognized the multicultural, multiracial, and growing diversity of both individual and family lifestyles in our society. Since that time, many schools have sought to implement innovative programs. Yet, as the NLN (2003) has recently concluded, much of this “innovation” has focused on the addition or rearrangement of content within the curriculum—in Bevis’ (1988) words “switch, swap, and slide content around” (p. 27)—rather than on significant, paradigm shift-type changes.

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents