Enhancing critical thinking in the preceptorship experience in nursing education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date no research has been conducted to examine the process used in the preceptorship experience to enhance critical thinking at the graduate level. This study provides data that could revitalize the preceptor/learner relationship and in turn influence future preceptorship programmes in graduate nursing education. AIM: The purpose of this study was to examine the preceptorship experience and its role in the enhancement of critical thinking in graduate nursing education. DESIGN: A grounded theory approach was employed, through semi-structured, tape-recorded interviews. Overall, 45 interviews were completed with graduate nursing students ranging in age from 26 to 53 years, and master's and doctorally prepared preceptors who ranged in age from 47 to 58 years. In addition, a journal of personal reflections was kept by each of the researchers. Analysis of data included the process of open coding, theoretical coding, selective coding, reduction and comparison. FINDINGS: Data revealed that a process, designated The Relational Process, occurred in the preceptorship experience to enhance the critical thinking ability of graduate nursing students. This process was found to be a complex, ongoing interpersonal dynamic between the graduate student and assigned preceptor. CONCLUSIONS: The relational process that emerged from this study indicates that specific preceptor behaviours are pivotal to the enhancement of critical thinking of graduate nursing students and ultimately impact on the success or failure of the preceptorship experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".