How nursing students perform in problem-based learning tutorials-A South African perspective
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Problem-based learning tutorials are considered the main vehicle for nursing students to acquire the skills needed to deal with the complexities of nursing practice. How students’ perform in these tutorials is an important measure of their learning development and skill acquisition. Purpose: The purpose of this two phased study was to determine and compare the performance of undergraduate nursing students in Problem-based Learning (PBL) tutorials using a validated evaluation instrument. In Phase-1 of the study the instrument was validated which led to the development of the computer-based: Tutorial Performance Evaluator (TPE). In Phase-2 the performance of undergraduate nursing students in PBL tutorials was assessed and described through the use of this instrument by the students and their facilitators. Methods: A cross-sectional, comparative design was used employing two sample sets: the first sample consisted of a cross-section of the total population of undergraduate nursing students (N = 53) in their first-year to fourth-year of study in a four year Bachelors degree. The second sample comprised the total population of facilitators (N = 6), who were directly involved in facilitating PBL tutorials. A computer-based TPE with seven main-items (skills) and 34 sub-items was used to elicit data on students’ self-assessment and facilitator-assessment of tutorial performance. Mean tutorial performance scores were calculated; correlations were drawn between student and facilitator scores and comparisons were made between the different years of study and within the main items to evaluate progress in skill acquisition. Results: Major findings included notable differences between facilitator-assessment and self-assessment together with a poor performance in all seven constructs on the evaluation instrument amongst first-year students. There was a significant improvement in the mean tutorial performance score from 27% in first-year students to 87% in fourth-year students. Conclusions: The findings suggest that first-year students struggle with PBL and a recommendation is to consider alternative educational strategies to prepare first year students for PBL.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».