Implementation of a flipped classroom: Nursing students’ perspectives
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
The need to update nursing curriculum has prompted the development of new pedagogies designed to engage students and help them develop clinical reasoning skills. This descriptive phenomenological study explored student experiences of “flipping the classroom” in two Medical/Surgical courses. “Flipping the classroom” is in contrast to a traditional class where lecture is given in class and assignments are sent as homework. Instead, with the flipped classroom, lecture is sent as homework and class time is devoted to active learning assignments. By making the lecture available to students outside of the classroom, class time can then be spent on innovative learning activities designed to engage the students in actively learning the lecture material. The flipped classroom can enhance the learning experiences of nursing students in Medical/Surgical courses; however, there are challenges related to this transformative process. The shift from a traditional, passive learning approach to a non-traditional active learning method is discussed through the lived experience of students as recipients of this innovative teaching strategy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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