Preparing Nursing Students to be Health Educators: Personal Knowing Through Performance and Feedback Workshops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<H4>ABSTRACT</H4> <P>Newly graduated RNs are expected to be competent health educators for individuals, groups, and communities. To prepare for this complex role, nursing students need time to focus on developing basic teaching skills and self-confidence in a non-threatening learning environment. Of primary importance to novice teachers&#146; development is taking the time to identify and appreciate the personal dimensions that are an integral part of the health educator role. Carper identified personal knowing as one of the four ways of knowing in nursing. This article describes an innovative praxis strategy that used videotaped performances, learner feedback, and self-reflection to encourage personal knowing in relation to the experience of nursing students learning to teach groups of clients. </P> <H4>AUTHOR</H4> <P>Received: May 14, 2004 </P> <P>Accepted: September 10, 2004 </P> <P>Ms. Little is an Instructor in the Collaboration for Academic Education in Nursing Program, Selkirk College, School of Health and Human Services, Castlegar, British Columbia, Canada. </P> <P>Address correspondence to Maureen Little, MScN, RN, Instructor, Collaboration for Academic Education in Nursing Program, Selkirk College, PO Box 1200, Castlegar, British Columbia, Canada V1N 3J1; e-mail: <A HREF="mailto:mlittle@selkirk.ca">mlittle@selkirk.ca</A>.</P>
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".