Engaging nursing preceptor-student dyads in an evidence-based approach to professional practice
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
This paper describes a pilot project of an educational workshop designed to engage nursing preceptors and their senior undergraduate students in an evidence-based approach to practice. The educational process, content, and teaching-learning strategies are outlined, and the evaluation is discussed. The paper concludes with recommendations for the formal implementation of the workshop as an educational offering. Today’s baccalaureate nursing programmes emphasise critical thinking in academic and professional practice courses, with a view to improving the quality of a student’s thinking “by skilfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.”1 It is within the context of critical thinking that students learn the fundamentals of health sciences research and develop a beginning understanding of evidence-based practice (EBP). Professional practice courses provide excellent clinical opportunities for students to use their theoretical knowledge in the application of EBP principles and processes, under the guidance and supervision of clinical teachers. With the ever increasing use of preceptorship as the major teaching-learning model for senior professional practice courses, the clinical teacher is often a Registered Nurse (RN) who provides direct care. Preceptorship utilises a framework whereby a senior nursing student is assigned to an experienced RN (known as a preceptor) employed by a healthcare agency and to a faculty tutor for the duration of the course. By working with the preceptor in day-to-day practice, the student gains invaluable “real life” professional experience in “real time.” The faculty tutor does not usually work with the preceptor-student dyad on a day-to-day basis but is linked to the preceptor and student via the course curriculum and the student’s individualised learning goals. One of the implicit benefits of this educational approach is the reciprocal learning from which all parties benefit, as each gains understanding of the others’ specific competencies and individual approaches …
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 | 0.030 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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