Nursing Student Perceptions of Concept Maps: From Theory to Practice
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
AIM: This qualitative study describes the experience of nursing students who construct and use electronic concepts maps in theoretical and clinical settings. BACKGROUND: Although concept maps are seen as innovative and effective teaching and learning tools, little qualitative data exists that describes the process by which students learn to master the skill of concept mapping. METHOD: A descriptive approach was used to analyze the data collected during 12 semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Motivated, open-minded students tend to perceive the usefulness of concept mapping, making the experience positive. Workshops, along with constructive feedback, were deemed essential to helping students master the skill of concept mapping. CONCLUSION: The results of this study will contribute to the successful integration of group concepts maps as part of a new competency-based nursing program. Results could also be beneficial to programs that wish to adopt concept mapping.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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