Knowledge mobilized by a critical thinking process deployed by nursing students in practical care situations: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a qualitative study of mobilization of knowledge within the critical thinking process deployed by female undergraduate nursing students in practical care situations. BACKGROUND: Holistic practice is based on variety of knowledge mobilized by a critical thinking process. Novices and, more specifically, students experience many difficulties in this regard. Therefore, a better understanding of the knowledge they mobilize in their practice is important for nurse educators. DESIGN: A qualitative study, guided by grounded theory, was carried out. Sixteen nursing students, registered in an undergraduate programme in an Eastern Canadian university, were recruited. Descriptions of practical care situations were obtained through explicitation interviews in 2007. A sociodemographic questionnaire, semi-structured interviews and field notes were also used. Data were analysed using an approach based on grounded theory. An additional stage of analysis involved data condensation. FINDINGS: Various types of knowledge guide nursing students' practice. These include intrapersonal, interpersonal, perceptual, moral/ethical, experiential, practical, scientific and contextual knowledge. The mobilization of these types of knowledge is only possible when the process of critical thinking has attained a higher level, giving rise to a new knowledge that we have termed combinational constructive knowledge rather than aesthetic knowledge. CONCLUSION: Clarification of the types of knowledge guiding the practice of student nurses and of the role of critical thinking in their mobilization could lead to innovative educational strategies. The findings provide guidance for the revision and development of both academic and clinical training programmes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".