MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049407957 · doi:10.3928/01484834-20081101-07

Critical Thinking Among RN-to-BSN Distance Students Participating in Human Patient Simulation

2008· article· en· W2049407957 on OpenAlexaff
Kathy L. Rush, Cathy Dyches, Susannah Waldrop, Angie Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical thinkingDebriefingBlackboard (design pattern)ConceptualizationThe InternetPsychologyDistance educationMedical educationComputer scienceMathematics educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulation is a strategy increasingly being used to promote critical thinking skills among baccalaureate nursing (BSN) students. It has been used to a limited extent with RN-to-BSN students, many of whom take their educational program through distance delivery. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand the critical thinking of distance RN-to-BSN students who participated in a simulation designed with interactive questions. Students taking the program, either by live televised broadcast (educational television [ETV]) or by online instruction, participated in the simulation. The ETV student simulation was facilitated from a broadcast studio by faculty, whereas Internet students completed the simulation by DVD. Postsimulation students participated in debriefing sessions, which were audiotaped by ETV students and completed by Internet students using a Blackboard discussion board. Data were analyzed using Scheffer and Rubenfeld's conceptualization of critical thinking. Findings revealed that simulation used by distance delivery cultivated critical thinking in RN-to-BSN students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.411 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing EducationSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207