Nurse teachers’ conceptions and practices of written feedback in Karachi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Written Feedback (WFB) plays a significant role in student’s learning in terms of improvement of their academic writing skills. However, the quality of WFB may be affected by various personal and contextual factors. This study aimed to identify nurse teachers’ conceptions and practices of WFB on written assignments in nursing degree offering institutions in Karachi, Pakistan. Methods : A cross-sectional descriptive study design was used to answer the study questions. The study was conducted at 11 nursing schools in Karachi by recruiting those teachers who were teaching in nursing degree programs. The sample size of the study consists of 80 teachers. Universal sampling technique was used to select the subjects of the study. Results : The study result consists of demographic information of the participants, teachers’ conceptions and their practices of WFB. Although majority (92%) of the teachers believed that WFB is important for students’ learning, they acknowledged that they were not able to provide WFB at optimum level to their students. This gap in practice is attributed to various personal, contextual, and organizational factors; among them, the highest reported factors were teachers’ lack of training for provision of WFB (84%), distraction in the environment (78%), and constraints of time due to teacher’s workload (74%). Conclusions : The importance of WFB for students’ learning is well established in the literature. However, the preparation of teachers and an enabling environment to facilitate teachers for optimum practices of WFB needs considerable attention by educational institutions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".