RN Students' Ratings and Opinions Related to the Importance of Certain Clinical Teacher Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical teachers make a necessary and valuable contribution to clinical nursing courses with non-RN learners. This contribution is often not considered necessary in degree nursing programs with an RN student population. This study describes the perceptions of RN students and the importance they attach to certain clinical teacher behaviors. Fifty-six participants in a distance education baccalaureate nursing program completed a questionnaire, including a rating scale and open-ended questions. Based on the mean values, items were ranked in importance. Sample quotes were provided to elaborate on the highest and lowest-ranked items. Participants rated the four categories in descending order of importance: Evaluation, Professional Competence, Interpersonal Relationships, and Teaching Ability. The top items gave the profile of a teacher who is approachable, fair, open, honest, and who creates mutual respect. The findings support a clinical teacher for RN learners. The data also reflect similarities and differences with findings of studies with non-RN student participants. The findings of this study provide information, not available in the literature, regarding clinical teacher behaviors of significance to RN students.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".