Baccalaureate Nursing Students’ Experience of Dyadic Learning in an Acute Care Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes a unique learning project designed to address the praxis gap between baccalaureate nursing students' clinical learning and theoretic principles of collaborative practice on an acute medical-surgical unit in Canada. The study was framed by the active engagement model to provide second-year nursing students a nontraditional approach to develop their nursing practice. Clinical faculty partnered with medical-surgical nursing staff and eight baccalaureate nursing students to explore the experience of collaborative learning and stakeholders' anticipated learning outcomes while working in dyads. A modified phenomenological approach was used in understanding the experience of dyadic learning through reflective journals, course evaluation data, and a semistructured exit interview for analysis. Four themes were revealed based on students' reflection of their experience: work engagement, relational practice, autonomy, and empowerment. These themes underscore the strengths and opportunities associated with this nontraditional approach to clinical learning.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".