Development of motivational strategies for nursing students at Zagazig University in Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Motivation has always been a central issue in education and has even been referred to as the most complex and challenging issue facing teachers today. The aim of the study was to develop motivational strategies for nursing students at Zagazig University. Methods: The researchers used the descriptive methodological design. Two types of samples were used: A stratified proportionate sample (323) and Jury committee (10). Questionnaire sheets were used to collect data for the present study (Motivational strategies assessment questionnaires and opinionnaire sheet). Results: The top strategies that were reported by study subjects as the least frequently used by their staff were: creating a pleasant classroom, promoting group cohesiveness and group norms, making the learning tasks stimulating, recognizing students’ efforts and exhibiting proper teaching behavior (98.1, 97.8, 97.5, 97.5 and 96.9 respectively). The top strategies perceived by the study sample as most important were: exhibiting proper teaching behavior, presenting tasks properly and promoting learner autonomy (82.7%, 79.3% and 78.0% respectively) while creating a pleasant classroom and recognizing students’ efforts are the least important (66.3%, 68.7% respectively). Conclusions: There was not a statistically significant difference between the educators use of motivational strategies and the importance of those strategies, there was not a statistically significant difference between male and female students regarding the educators use of motivational strategies, there was a statistically significant difference between male and female students regarding the importance of motivational strategies, as regards to educators use of motivational strategies there were statistically significant differences between first year and second year, third year and fourth year, concerning the importance of motivational strategies there were statistically significant differences between first year and second year, fourth year and first year and finally based on results and literature the required motivational strategies for nursing students at Zagazig University, Egypt were developed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".