A Comparison of Students’ Performance Under Full-Time, Part-Time, and Online Conditions in an Undergraduate Nursing Microbiology Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare undergraduate nursing students’ achievement on examinations for three groups in a mandatory microbiology course. The study represents one aspect of a larger research project designed to gain insight into factors that may influence online learning for distance education nursing students at a Canadian community college. Data were collected from full-time (n=206) and part-time (n=39) students in a traditional face-to-face learning environment, and from part-time students in an online learning environment (n=54). Three examinations for all course sections (two midterms, one final) were used to evaluate students’ outcomes. Data analyses showed no significant statistical difference in students’ outcomes on either of the midterm examinations, but on the final examination full-time students in the face-to-face instructional environment outperformed students who took the course online. Further analysis of online students showed an interaction between age and examination performance over time, such that older online students outperformed their younger counterparts as they gained more experience in the online environment. A follow-up to this re- search study has been proposed that would incorporate more controls in order to increase internal validity. L’objectif poursuivi par cette étude consistait à comparer les résultats des étudiants de premier cycle en nursing lors des examens, dans trois groupes, dans un cours obligatoire de microbiologie. L’étude représente un aspect d’un projet de recherche plus large conçu pour mieux comprendre les facteurs qui peuvent influencer l’apprentissage en ligne des étudiants de nursing en apprentissage à distance dans un collège d’une communauté canadienne. Des données ont été recueillies de la part d’étudiants à temps plein (n=206) et à temps partiel (n=39) dans un environnement d’apprentissage direct et d’étudiants à temps partiel dans un environnement d’apprentissage en ligne (n=54). Trois examens pour toutes les sections du cours (deux mi-semestre, un final) ont été utilisés pour évaluer les résultats des étudiants. Des analyses de données n’ont démontré aucune différence statistique importante entre les résultats des examens des étudiants des deux examens semestriels, mais les étudiants à temps plein lors d’un examen final dans un environnement direct ont mieux réussi que les étudiants qui suivaient le cours en ligne. Une analyse plus poussée des étudiants en ligne a démontré une interaction entre l’age et la performance à l’examen, alors que les étudiants en ligne plus agés ont mieux réussi que les plus jeunes à mesure qu’ils gagnaient plus d’expérience dans l’environnement en ligne. Un suivi de cette recherche a été proposée, qui incorporerait plus de controles afin d’augmenter la validité interne.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".