Evaluating Critical Thinking in Clinical Concept Maps: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, the complexities in the health care system are challenging nurses to be skillful and knowledgeable critical thinkers and decision makers. To adequately prepare future nurses to meet the challenges, nurse educators must nurture and facilitate critical thinking. One strategy believed to promote critical thinking in nursing education is concept maps. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the level of critical thinking in the clinical concept maps developed by second year baccalaureate nursing students. Students enrolled in a five-week clinical practicum course were asked to submit their final concept map and participate in a focus group. The data for the study included eighteen concept maps, 1 student focus group and 1 instructor focus group. The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric (Facione & Facione, 1994) was used to measure levels of critical thinking, and content analysis was used to analyze focus group data. Results from this study indicated that developing concept maps in the clinical setting fostered critical thinking and improved clinical preparedness.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".