Promoting design thinking in nursing education: Experience of Moroccan undergraduate students in a surgical department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: “Design Thinking” is a problem-solving strategy focused on human behavior and needs. Within education, it is a collaborative approach with significant potential to produce innovations that address current issues. The Higher Institute of Nursing Professions and Technical Healthcare in Morocco is a public institution that provides training for nursing and healthcare technicians. By examining the contribution of design thinking in helping students overcome challenges during their internships, this study aims to improve the education experience of nursing students by promoting the adoption of this approach in their clinical practice.Methods: This study is descriptive and exploratory, using the design thinking approach of the d-School at Stanford University with Moroccan students at the Higher Institute of Nursing Professions and Technical Healthcare of Tetuan. The study follows a five-step process (Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test) and includes 21 selected nursing students as designers during clinical training in a surgical ward under the guidance of their nurse educator. The designers then collaborated with the other nursing students on their surgical rotations and presented the solutions. Two satisfaction questionnaires were distributed among the designers and participating students to assess how this approach aided in addressing the identified problems.Results: Using design thinking allowed students to be familiar with the management of the surgical department, how it operates, and the expectations of the training. The approach yielded numerous solutions, which the designers compiled into a guide for improving the clinical education experience for all nursing students. The satisfaction questionnaire results indicate that 76% of designers see potential in using this approach to overcome practical difficulties, and 52% believe it enhances the learning experience. However, the guide format received a satisfaction rate of 91% among end-users.Conclusions: The use of the “Design Thinking” process showed that the conceptual thinking framework helped the nursing students understand the difficulties they faced during the first contact with the field placement. Promoting design thinking among nursing students has become an essential tool to generate innovations, and address challenges by developing competencies in a professional environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".