A preliminary investigation an innovated life-death course for nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The ever-changing and increasingly complex state of knowledge in higher education requires students to develop high-level critical thinking skills. To deal with complex situations encountered in clinical practice, cultivating the critical thinking skills in classroom is particularly important. Aims: This study aims to examine the experience of students on an innovative life-and-death studies course. This experience is examined in term of the critical thinking skills, critical thinking disposition, and perceived learning. Methods: A mixed design of quantitative and qualitative approaches was adopted. The 2-year senior college gerontological care program students were recruited. Critical thinking skills and disposition were assessed and compared in an LDS group ( n = 36) and a not-LDS group ( n = 34) at the beginning and end of semester using a self-report questionnaire. In-depth, focus-group interviews were conducted at end of semester. Results: No difference between the LDS group and not-LDS group in terms of critical thinking skill ( p = .063) and disposition (p= .89), but significant difference in induction skills ( p = .008). Focus group interview findings complemented survey findings and revealed themes that reflected the LDS course learning experience of students. Conclusions: Critical thinking skills can embedded in LDS course to broader and deeper reflection on death-related issues and further construct knowledge by providing rich experience in the course activities. However, emphasis on systematic design for curriculum and faculty development in teaching critical thinking needs to help create links that students may promote engaged thinking activities within their courses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".