Instructional strategies chosen for the classroom in a process-oriented curriculum : a grounded theory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trend in process-oriented curricula reform began in the mid-1980s and 1990s in response to a call for nursing education to graduate registered nurses that were responsive to a changing society. Many curricula were redesigned from a traditional approach to a process-oriented approach at this time. The purpose of this study is to explore, from a Grounded Theory approach, how instructional strategies are determined within the Canadian classroom setting in a process-oriented curriculum. Interviews were conducted with 17 nurse educators from the Nursing Education Program of Saskatchewan (NEPS). Nurse educators represented courses from all years of the four-year baccalaureate program and all three sites. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim with data saturation reached after 13 interviews. Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) Grounded Theory analysis was utilized. Data analysis was assisted with the use of the qualitative data analysis software program Atlas.ti. The understanding of self was an integrating factor in the theory. The theory provides insights into the factors that have determined the types of instructional strategies utilized by full-time faculty within a generic process-oriented curriculum and identifies the support systems these nurse educators feel were or should be in place to assist in their roles. The research has implications for nurse educators, administrators, program planners, and 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 | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".