The Impact of Blended Teaching on Knowledge, Satisfaction, and Self-Directed Learning in Nursing Undergraduates: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
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 study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a blended-teaching intervention using Internet-based tutorials coupled with traditional lectures in an introduction to research undergraduate nursing course. Effects of the intervention were compared with conventional, face-to-face classroom teaching on three outcomes: knowledge, satisfaction, and self-learning readiness. METHOD: A two-group, randomized, controlled design was used, involving 112 participants. Descriptive statistics and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed. RESULTS: The teaching method was found to have no direct impact on knowledge acquisition, satisfaction, and self-learning readiness. However, motivation and teaching method had an interaction effect on knowledge acquisition by students. Among less motivated students, those in the intervention group performed better than those who received traditional training. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that this blended-teaching method could better suit some students, depending on their degree of motivation and level of self-directed learning readiness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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