Evaluation of Distance Education Delivery Methods for a Primary Care Nurse Practitioner Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports the results of an evaluation of a blend of educational delivery methods used over a two-year period in a one-year Primary Care Nurse Practitioner (PCNP) program in Ontario, Canada. The first of its kind in the province, this practice-based program was administered by a complex consortium of 10 universities that combined and shared resources to offer the program in English and French to students in all regions of the province using multiple delivery methods. Students, professors, and tutors responded to a questionnaire designed to assess their perceptions of and satisfaction with the delivery methods. Students also participated in focus group interviews. Participants were satisfied with all delivery methods and developed new technological skill sets that were perceived as transferable to other teaching, learning, and practice situations. They expressed greatest satisfaction with face-to-face delivery, an approach with which they were familiar. The most dramatic increase in comfort over time was with computer conferencing, although it was the least familiar technology at the beginning of the program. Ongoing technical support was emphasized as an important need. The findings will be of interest to those planning program delivery using multiple educational delivery methods. Le présent article rend compte d’une évaluation portant sur l’utilisation, pendant deux années, de diverses méthodes de diffusion d’un programme annuel en soins infirmiers de première instance (PCNP). Ce programme axé sur la pratique, offert pour la première fois en Ontario (Canada), était sous la direction d’un regroupement complexe de dix universités. Celles-ci ont mis en commun et partagé leurs ressources afin d’offrir ce programme, en français et en anglais, à des étudiants répartis dans toute la province, en s’appuyant sur un large éventail de moyens de diffusion. Un questionnaire adressé aux étudiants, aux professeurs et aux moniteurs visait à évaluer leurs perceptions et leur satisfaction quant à ces divers moyens. Certains étudiants ont également participé à des groupes de discussion dirigée. Les étudiants se sont dits satisfaits de toutes les méthodes de diffusion et ont affirmé avoir acquis de nouvelles compétences technologiques, qu’ils estiment applicables à d’autres situations d’enseignement, d’apprentissage ou de pratique. Ils ont accordé leur préférence à l’enseignement face à face, qui leur était le plus familier. En début de programme, les étudiants étaient moins familiers avec le forum électronique et celui-ci leur déplaisait; toutefois, leur niveau d’aisance face à ce moyen a augmenté de manière significative en cours de route. Ils ont clairement souligné l’importance d’un soutien technologique continu. Les résultats de cette enquête intéresseront les concepteurs de programmes qui souhaitent utiliser des modalités et des technologies multiples de diffusion.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".