The evolving role of a clinical instructor in an integrated undergraduate nursing curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undergraduate nursing curriculum is changing to keep pace with the healthcare system. As a result, nursing faculties must consider innovative approaches to clinical instruction. In 2010, one nursing faculty transformed the traditional sessional clinical instructor role into a Nursing Practice Instructor role in order to facilitate the integration between theory and practice in both on and off campus settings. This descriptive qualitative study involved conversational interviews led by Nursing Practice Instructor peer-researchers to elicit the perceptions of how roles have changed from that of a sessional instructor. Eligibility for participation included all Nursing Practice Instructors who previously held a role as a sessional instructor in the same faculty. Data Analysis was done using a content analysis approach where themes within each guiding question were identified and then compared for congruency and further interpretation. Participants felt that there were differences between the sessional Clinical Instructors and Nursing Practice Instructor roles and expectations and as a result of this change, they were more invested in their teaching role based on their ability to integrate the curriculum, the opportunity to engage in the faculty, and contribute to student learning in a more significant way. Overall, the Nursing Practice Instructor role has initiated changes in how clinical instructors are employed and supported, contributing positively to the outcomes associated with an integrated, context-relevant curriculum, and ultimately, fostering future nurses with the ability to make a difference in the healthcare system.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".