MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148829641 · doi:10.3928/01484834-20040401-08

Effects of Computer-Based Clinical Conferencing on Nursing Students’ Self-Efficacy

2004· article· en· W2148829641 on OpenAlex
Yolanda Babenko‐Mould, Mary‐Anne Andrusyszyn, Dolly Goldenberg

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumSelf-efficacyCurriculumMedical educationNursingIntervention (counseling)Nurse educationPsychologyMedicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pretest-posttest, quasi-experimental, control group design and Bandura's theory of self-efficacy were used to examine the influence of computer conferencing on fourth-year baccalaureate nursing students' self-efficacy for professional nursing competencies and computer-mediated learning (CML) during a final clinical practicum. Descriptive analysis was also used to explore themes regarding strengths and challenges of online learning. The convenience sample included 42 direct-entry students (control group: n = 27; online intervention: n = 15). Within both groups, there was a significant difference in self-efficacy for nursing competencies from pretest to posttest. However, between-group posttest scores were not significantly different. Computer conferencing enhanced learning, and students' self-efficacy for CML increased at posttest. Strengths of CML included connection, support, learning, and sharing. Challenges involved time and Internet access. Insights gained may assist educators in curriculum development when considering how CML strategies support clinical courses and strengthen learning communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.414 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it