The use of critical reflective inquiry among American Baccalaureate Nursing Students in a global service learning experience in Haiti: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Global service-learning (GSL) experiences are gaining increased recognition as essential nursing education components. Nursing students immersed in global communities contribute to society, through reciprocal partnerships, by improving health. GSL students should engage in reflection as a form of assessment, although there is limited empirical data onlearning outcomes, and no universal model of reflection exists. The purpose of this study was to better understand the nature ofpractice events students chose to describe during a week-long GSL experience in Haiti, their reflective analysis, and ability tocritique their experiences as a catalyst to change future practice. Methods: In this qualitative descriptive study, critical reflective inquiry (CRI) through guided journaling was utilized for ten nursing students who traveled to Haiti for clinical immersion. Data was analyzed using a template approach in relation to study aims and phases of the model. Results: CRI was a useful framework as students illuminated the progression of reflective thinking. Five categories in practice situations were delineated: a) ethical dilemmas, b) health promotion, c) professional role modeling and power of team, d)challenges in communicating and making a connection, and e) respect of the Haitian perspective. Students also articulated moralreckoning and ethical sensitivity skills not previously reported in relation to GSL experiences. Conclusions: CRI could be considered a universal model of reflection for GSL experiences among nursing students. Use of focus groups in future studies may improve recall of student experiences as they often described same practice situations. It is difficult to determine if reflection can be maintained to transform practice, but long term impacts of GSL could be studied longitudinally. In contrast to current literature, students’ description of moral reckoning and ethical sensitivity skills pose a challenge to nurseeducators about how to further develop these essential skills post GSL immersion.
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 | 0.022 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".