The Use of Scaffolding and Interactive Learning Strategies in Online Courses for Working Nurses: Implications for Adult and Online Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews the foundational litera- ture of contemporary e-learning, with a focus on scaffolding, instructional design, and engagement. These concepts are then considered in two limited case studies, each involving e-learning and adult learners—in particular, nurse-learners. The first case study describes the use of a scaffolding model called Introduction, Connect, Apply, Reflect, and Extend (ICARE) in e-learning for nursing education. The second is a reflection on the use of engagement strategies for the purposes of discourse and learning in a different online nursing context.Because nursing educators were among the early adopters of e-learning, they are important mentors to others who are adopting e-learning strategies at this time. Additionally, the paper is a crossroads publication: it reminds the reader of the imperative to review theory and emerging evidence related to e-learning and to bring key findings to the actual practice of e-learning in order to benefit the adult student. This commitment to theory and practice will enable the evolution of e-learning for all learners, including returning adult learners and working professionals.Keywords: scaffolding, instructional design, interaction, best practices, engage- ment, adult education, working profes- sionals, e-learning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".