Using narrative pedagogy: learning and practising interpretive thinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper reports a hermeneutic study undertaken to explicate students' experiences in educational courses in which teachers enact Narrative Pedagogy. BACKGROUND: International interest in developing and implementing discipline-specific pedagogies is becoming commonplace as teachers respond to the challenges of preparing students for contemporary practice. Lifeworld Pedagogy, developed in Scandinavia, and Narrative Pedagogy, developed in the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand, are two approaches developed from nursing research for nursing education that provide teachers with research-based alternatives to conventional pedagogy. Further research is needed, however, that addresses how new pedagogies are experienced in schools of nursing. METHOD: Teachers and students from 22 schools of nursing in the United States of America were interviewed over a 4-year period between 2002 and 2005. Using interpretive phenomenology as the philosophical background and Heideggerian hermeneutics as the method, accounts from 52 participants were analysed by a research team. FINDINGS: The theme Learning and Practising Interpretive Thinking reveals how reform is occurring in schools of nursing that use Narrative Pedagogy. It documents how Narrative Pedagogy helps students challenge their assumptions and think through and interpret situations they encounter from multiple perspectives. Findings suggest that by focusing teachers' and students' attention on thinking and interpreting as communal experiences, interpretive pedagogies such as Narrative Pedagogy engage teachers and students in pooling their wisdom, challenging their preconceptions, envisioning new possibilities for providing care and engaging with others to ensure patient-centred care and safety. CONCLUSION: By documenting students' experiences in courses in which Narrative Pedagogy is used, this study provides teachers with research-based evidence to guide their pedagogical decisions. It extends international efforts to develop discipline-specific pedagogies and offers a practical, student-centred approach teachers can use to enhance students' thinking.
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 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".