W1 Assignment 4 Discussion articles is about Patricia Banner i need only one page summary TITLE IS FROM NOVICE TO EXPERT;benner legagy for nurse education

Write your one page summary putting the complete reference in APA format at the top. Email these to me at djpannullo@yahoo.com, we need to t send to the professor as one document for review and we need to submit a packet along with the presentation by the due date as one project, not 5 individual projects
(I believe, core need to put together a PowerPoint presentation for the project following the critique template (see link in the W1-A4 post above)rect me if I am wrong here).
K2- Focus on providing our finding on the theorists’ view of the four basic metaparadigms. (see p. 90 in Butt and Rich). This information will be part of the PowerPoint
Concentrate on providing the basic theoretical assertions or propositions and you can conduct an analysis and critique of the model with a focus on elaboration of the theory’s implications for nursing practice, nursing education and nursing research.
Benner’s seminal book From Novice to Expert, although like many of
my colleagues, I had never sat down and read it from cover to
cover. On properly reading it for the first time, I was struck by a double
and somewhat unexpected irony. Firstly, that one of the most
influential books on nursing theory in recent times is, if not antitheoretical,
then most certainly atheoretical. Thus, in the foreword
to the original edition, Myrtle Aydelotte praises Benner for giving ‘a
lucid, colourful description [rather than theory] of nursing practice
as rendered by expert nurses’ (Benner, 1984, p. v, my emphasis
and brackets). She goes on to say that, ‘The value of this document
lies in the understanding it gives us about the mystery of expert practice
and in the creation of an awareness that we must respect
this mystery, rather than pretend that we can dispel or standardise
it by submitting it to rules, procedures, and regulation’ (pp. v–vi).
This apparent warning, which is echoed by Benner later in the book,
is that we should not (indeed, we cannot) look too deeply into the
‘mysteries’ of expert practice. Indeed, when expert practitioners
are asked to describe their practice, the accounts they give are not a
reflection of what they actually do; there is a mismatch between
their espoused theories and their observed actions. Thus, ‘formal
structural models, decision analysis, or process models cannot
describe the advanced levels of clinical performance observable in
actual practice’ (p. 38). Benner cautions that it is not simply ‘that
the rules and formulas just move to the unconscious level or go underground’
(p. 37); there are no rules and formulas. Further, according
to Benner, if experts are forced to practice by the book, according
to established research- and theory-based procedures, their performance
actually deteriorates. Benner’s ‘theory’, then, is that expert
practice cannot be theorised.
A second irony is that this theory for which Benner is so well
known and which established her reputation is not her own, and neither
was it intended to be the focus of her book. Interestingly, the
model of skill acquisition was developed by Hubert and Stuart Dreyfus
and was used by Benner as a framework for analysing her research
data, resulting in 31 competencies categorised under seven domains.
In the preface, Benner warns against ‘hasty system builders who will
want to deify the 31 competencies described …’ (p. xxii). However,
she need not have been concerned, since her model of domains and
competencies failed to catch the imagination and is now largely forgotten
in comparison to Dreyfus and Dreyfus’s ‘Novice to Expert’
model of skill acquisition, which was intended solely as a system for
ordering and categorising her data, and which comprises only the
first two chapters of this 14 chapter book.
The origins of Dreyfus and Dreyfus’s novice to expert model can
be found in Hubert Dreyfus’s book What Computers Can’t Do, first
published in 1972. Hubert Dreyfus was a professor of philosophy
who argued that the so-called artificial intelligence displayed by
computers was, in fact, nothing of the kind. Computers could not
and would never be able to think or display intelligence in the
way that people can, simply because computers are not and never
can be people. As he wrote in a later book Mind over Machine:
…computers are analytic engines. They can apply rules and make
logical inferences at great speed and with unerring accuracy. To
exactly the extent that rules and inferences have a crucial place
in everyday human affairs, the computer has a place in improving
and implementing logical thought. Since the extent is limited, so
also is the place of the analytic engine (Dreyfus and Dreyfus,
1986, p. xxi).
Computers, he argued, can be programmed tomake logical decisions
based on an extremely rapid analysis of huge amounts of information,
but can never be programmed to be intuitive or even to display common
sense. Further, Dreyfus argued that expertise becomes ‘embodied’
so that ‘an expert’s skill has become somuch a part of himthat he need
be nomore aware of it than he is of his own body’ (Dreyfus and Dreyfus,
1986, p. 30). For example, expert pilots no longer experience the aircraft
as separate from themselves but rather as an extension of their bodies.
But, of course, computers do not have bodies, and can therefore only
ever be competent pilots, albeit extremely competent pilots. Dreyfus’s
argument was that computers analyse information and take decisions
in the same way that people do when they first begin a new activity
or occupation. Computers can reach the stage of competence, but can
never progress beyond it to become experts in the sense that we use
the word when we apply it to people.
When Benner applied this novice to expert model to the transcripts
of her interviews with nurses, she found that more experienced practitionersweremore
likely to displaywhatDreyfus referred to as ‘intuition’
or ‘gut feeling’. For example, Benner quotes ‘an expert psychiatric nurse
clinician’:
When I say to a doctor, ‘the patient is psychotic,’ I don’t always know
how to legitimize that statement. But I am never wrong. Because I
know psychosis from inside out. And I feel that, and I know it, and I
trust it. I don’t care if nothing else is happening, I still really know
that (Benner, 1984, p. 32).
The very fact that we could never even imagine a computer offering
such a rationale for its decision lends weight to Dreyfus’s argument, but
at the same time, the apparent lack of any logic (‘I feel that…), doubt
(‘I am never wrong’), ability to put their knowledge into words
(‘I don’t always know how to legitimise that statement’) or reliance
on evidence (‘I don’t care if nothing else is happening…) has caused
concern and fuelled criticism of so-called expert practice. Experts
typically do not apply research-based theories or evidence and act
without any rules, formulas or rationale. As Dreyfus and Dreyfus
(1986) point out: ‘Competent performance is rational; proficiency
is transitional; experts act arationally […] in a manner that defies
explanation’ (p. 36, my emphasis).
Benner’s work began to catch the imagination of nurse academics
in the UK just at the point