My editor has just said that "reteaching" is not a word. It does appear in MW online through Onelook, as well as Wiktionary. However, I admit that is not good evidence. The editor suggested "reiterate."

We are putting forth an initiative for new graduates, and we want to stress (particularly for educators who could become defensive) that our program will not be reteaching what they have taught in their undergraduate program. Instead this will be experiential learning. The concept of it not being "reteaching" came to us from the Australian group who is working on the same initiative. From my perspective "reiterate" does not do the trick.

What do you think? Should I cave and use "reiterate"? Is there a better word for the concept we're trying to articulate?

I agree that "reiterate" is not the right word, because it is used more in the sense of repeating one thing over and over again. What you are trying to convey is that your curriculum won't be covering the old ground these nurses covered as undergraduates, a much broader swath of knowledge. I think "reteach" is a perfectly good word, but if the editor won't buy it, you could just state that the curriculum will move beyond the undergraduate curriculum to explore what these new nurses will encounter in their actual care-giving experience. Just say it in a phrase or sentence instead of trying to find another single word that conveys the meaning. Not as efficient, but maybe it will work.

Wordmatic

Why not "teach again"?

The trend in training circles (and maybe teaching circles) these days is to remove the emphasis from the training to the learning. In other words, a course would express its outcomes as those areas of skill that participants would acquire, not what would be delivered.

So in your own case, maybe you could use the verb "relearn" and apply it to the learners. Or else simply use your other expression "covering old ground" which is readily understandable to most.

quote:

The trend in training circles (and maybe teaching circles) these days is to remove the emphasis from the training to the learning.

It is certainly the trend in UK schools, and other institutions like Further Education Colleges.

Out of curiosity, I looked up "relearn" in a medical dictionary. It defines the word as:

quote:

The process of regaining a skill or ability that has been partially or entirely lost.

(My emphasis.)

That is definitely not the meaning you want.

Why not just say, "repeating?"

regenerative learning?

Reviewing?

quote:

So in your own case, maybe you could use the verb "relearn" and apply it to the learners.

I agree that our emphasis is on the learner and outcomes now, too. However, I do think there is a distinction between learning and teaching. While our curriculum will not reteach what they had in their undergraduate programs, how do we know they ever learned what they had been taught?

In the end, I presented my case, and, for once, I won (most likely because I complimented their editing ) . They are letting me keep reteach, especially since they agree there is no other word or phrase that really works. It's also reassuring that the Australian researchers also use the word. That's where we got the idea in the first place.

quote:

While our curriculum will not reteach what they had in their undergraduate programs, how do we know they ever learned what they had been taught?

No easy, I agree, but this is part of the APL (Accreditation of Prior Learning)process that is needed prior to embarking on any piece of training. Hopefully the previous instruction will have been validated by testing or some other process, and that should do the job.

In nursing we look at practice outcomes, but they are almost impossible to pin down. There are so many intervening variables. Right now we are convening a research advisory panel of outcomes experts from around the country to help us measure learning outcomes. Stay tuned!