MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Learner Concerns and Teaching Strategies for Video-Conferencing

2001· article· en· W166192303 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVideoconferencingThematic analysisFocus groupDistance educationPsychologyNurse educationData collectionMedical educationQualitative researchPedagogyComputer scienceMultimediaMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to understand the influences of interactive video-conferencing technology on learning experiences of RN students studying for baccalaureate degrees via interactive distance education. METHOD: Data collection in this phenomenological study used open-ended questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups. Preliminary thematic analysis of questionnaires shaped open-ended questions for interviews and focus groups with learners confirmed findings. RESULTS: Students identified themes of connecting with others, organization, negative influences, and personal factors as influential to their learning. They also identified useful teaching strategies to facilitate learning within this distance nursing education environment. CONCLUSION: University nursing programs using video-conferencing for distance education can foster learning by using teaching strategies that fit the technology, increase student interaction, and engage the 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it