Students Connecting Critical Appraisal to Evidence-Based Practice: A Teaching–Learning Activity for Research Literacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the implementation of an innovative research literacy teaching-learning activity. The Research in Practice Challenge activity promoted the importance and relevance of evidence-based practice with second-year nursing students in an undergraduate research course. Students appraised the evidence within policies and practice guidelines identified by managers in practice. Collaboration among students, faculty, managers, and the librarian enabled completion of the activity. Essential skills of identifying research problems in practice, searching the literature, and critically evaluating evidence were applied. Ultimately, students were asked to respond to the question: "Does this policy or guideline need revision, and how, based upon current evidence?" Effectiveness of this activity was garnered from the students' responses to course evaluations and analysis of teaching notes. Course evaluation revealed that students valued how the activity highlighted the relevance of research literacy for their practice. Further recommendations for research literacy teaching and learning are suggested.
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 | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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".