Developing and Piloting an Online Graduate Nursing Course Focused on Experiential Learning of Qualitative Research Methods
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the turmoil of a worldwide economic crisis, the health sector remains largely understaffed, and the nursing shortage represents a major issue that jeopardizes graduate nursing education. Access to education remains a challenge, particularly in rural and remote areas. This article reports the process of developing an asynchronous online qualitative research course. This online course was piloted among 16 interdisciplinary students. Participants agreed that experiential learning was useful to understand the intricacies of qualitative research. Within this constructivist approach, students were immersed in real-life experiences, which focused on the development of skills applicable to qualitative research. Based on the findings, we suggest that constructivism and the Four-Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) model (a four-part approach for fostering the development of complex skills) represent valuable ontological and pedagogical approaches that can be used in online courses. Triangulating these two approaches is also congruent with the student-centered philosophy that underpins nursing graduate programs.
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it