Table 2 Section B: Evaluation of the model

Model Validation N = 4

1. Clarity of the model

a) Semantic clarity:

• Are the concepts clearly defined?

• Are the definitions understandable and coherent?

0 (0%)

1 (25%)

3 (75%)

• Clear definitions from literature and subject definitions are provided and are understandable.

• reconsider the word ‘transformational’ for better characterisation of the learning process.

b) Semantic consistency:

• Are the concepts congruent and in harmony with the definitions and purpose and aligned to the relationships featured in the model?

0 (0%)

2 (50%)

2 (50%)

• Provide a network view of the involved concepts (not the too-detailed lists).

• Transformational learning in the current format is presented as a linear and one-dimensional manner and therefore leads to missing the dynamic nature thereof and the relationship.

c) Structural clarity:

• Are the illustrated connections and logical reasoning coherent with the descriptive elements of the model?

1 (25%)

3 (75%)

0 (0%)

• To characterise the lines and arrows more specifically: is cause of…, is impetus to …, is effect of…, is co-occurring with…, is part of…, is condition to … etc”; and “change the process structure because it is less a closed circle and more an endless spiral”.

• Change of structure, landscape and dimensional.

• I missed this in the description of the model. The one-directional nature of transformation learning seems at present as an action activated by the lecturer to influence the learner, whilst it can rather be considered that the intense and complex relationship between the lecturer and student in which transformational learning is facilitated, rather presents an interactive and reciprocal effect.

• Look at the flow of how the model is arranged.

d) Structural consistency:

• Do the structural forms used for illustration as a conceptual map enhance the clarity and comprehension of the descriptive elements of the model?

1 (25%)

2 (50%)

1 (25%)

• A sketch of the starting position of the students. Students are not recipients but co-creators with their own input and developments.

• The clouds in the middle could be replaced by the dynamics as these exist between the student and nurse educator.

• Illustrate the interactivity between the agent and recipient and the process and outcomes of this transformational learning.

2. Simplicity of the model:

a) Are the number and differentiation of concepts and interrelationships least in simplicity or acceptable in complexity?

1 (25%)

1 (25%)

2 (50%)

• Love the simplicity.

• The background consists of complex practices, mandatory rules and regulations, instable politics (also the insurances companies), legal requirements, etc. It is not such a simple and peaceful background as described in the text”; and “The text is overloaded with details and extended enumerations: being more selective, less redundant and more frequently zooming out make your model stronger. Less is more!

• Present the depth, multidimensional nature of the concepts with the context of large classes, fitting a practice model, here in South Africa.

• Use less text for the model. Simple is key and only relevant concepts are represented in the model.

• The preferred learning styles – see literature.

• The essential competences of the teacher are listed: the competence ‘able to teach’ is missing.

• The phasing of the educational process: how do people learn, in which sequences?

• Better characterisation of the learning process is needed.

b) Does the contextual situation warrant the various concepts to enhance understanding of the concepts and their interrelatedness in the model?

0 (0%)

2 (50%)

2 (50%)

c) Does the model serve to describe, explain and/or predict concepts or their interrelatedness in practice?

0 (0%)

2 (50%)

2 (50%)

3. Generality of the model:

a) Do the breadth of scope and specificity of purpose appraise the broad empirical experiences of concepts for the purpose of nursing?

0 (0%)

2 (50%)

2 (50%)

• Love this- value and simplicity.

• A list of intended competencies (or: outcome – the blue banner is not enough in this respect).

• Being a practice model, reading through the description, the theoretical justification for the model was present but the tangible practical application of presence seemed absent – how to do reflective practices for presence specially in the large-class setting.

• Arrange the process and flow of the model so that is easy to understand. For example, the dynamics appear as if they are a result of what is currently happening in the model. A suggestion is that an outcome is highlighted. The outcome is nursing student who is present and is reflective.

• We need to address social justice.

b) Are ideas arranged to facilitate application to practice and the health care team while embodying nursing as a discipline?

0 (0%0

2 (50%)

2 (50%)

c) Are the concepts of the individual, health, environment and society featured broadly in the general application of the model?

0 (0%)

3 (75%)

1 (25%)

4. Accessibility of the model:

a) Would the concepts be identified as empirical indicators in practice within the realm of nursing?

1 (25%)

0 (0%)

3 (75%)

• The large class realities in nursing education which includes in the South African context also diversity brings the contextual realities in which the reflective practices for presence are to be facilitated. In addition, large classes bring forth various challenges that impact especially this relationship between the lecturer and student. I missed the practical application of the model onto these realities.

b) Do the definitions of the concepts adequately manifest their meanings in the nursing practice setting that is specified?

0 (0%)

1 (25%)

3 (75%)

c) Despite either the simplicity or complexity of the model, do the concepts create conceptual meanings in the clinical practice setting?

0 (0%)

1 (25%)

3 (75%)

5. Importance of the model:

a) Does the model have clinical value or practical significance in the targeted area of clinical nursing practice?

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

4 (100%)

• The too high and too encompassing standards undermine the model: they cannot and will not be met, and the conclusion will be that presence cannot be taught nor learned, at least not in this way, if ever. That would be harmful

b) Is there futuristic and pragmatic value in the applicability to lead future practice of nursing in the targeted area?

0 (0%)

1 (25%)

3 (75%)

c) Does the theory in the model create understanding and the potential for nursing education and research?

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

4 (100%)

d) Does the model differentiate the focus or nature of nursing as a discipline separate to other service professions?

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

4 (100%)

General:

a) Importance for research, practice and education

0 (0%)

1 (25%)

3 (75%)

• I can gladly confirm that you have reached the point of presenting a practice model

• The final challenge now is for you to present the depth, multidimensional nature of the concepts with the context of large classes, fitting a practice model, here in South Africa

b) Validity or trustworthiness

1 (25%)

0 (0%)

3 (75%)

c) Other (Specify)

0 (0%)

1 (25%)

3 (75%)