The implementation of innovative initiatives to enhance distance learning for Australian undergraduate nursing and midwifery students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing distance education students with different modes of study and interactive online learning resources has become an increasingly important part of nursing and midwifery higher education. In 2006, the number of students enrolled ‘externally’ in a compulsory foundation course (anatomy and physiology) comprised 38% of the total cohort of students (this percentage is three times the Australian HE standard for students studying externally). In response to student feedback and ongoing critical reflection a number of factors were identified that led to student dissatisfaction as well as a lower retention rate compared to the on-campus cohort. External students also reported anxiety about studying in an online environment, returning to study and study workload. In order to overcome these anxieties, provide support and assist with student retention and satisfaction, a number of innovative learning initiatives using emerging educational tools and technologies were developed and implemented. This paper discusses the results of both the early and more recent initiatives introduced into a course that was initially designed for only face-to-face students but has since been redesigned to include and support the unique needs of the external learner.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| 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".