MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565958732 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v7n5p55

The character of nursing students’ critical reflection at the end of their education

2016· article· en· W2565958732 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kicki Klaeson, M. Berglund, Susanne Gustavsson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHögskolan i Skövde
KeywordsCharacter (mathematics)Reflection (computer programming)NursingPsychologyCritical reflectionNurse educationMedical educationMedicinePedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background : In nursing education, theoretical and practical knowledge are intertwined and integrated in the prospective nurses’ lifeworld. To enable this, and to develop a critical reflective approach, students should adopt a critical attitude. This study aims to gain a deeper understanding of the character of prospective nurses’ critical reflection. Methods : This is a descriptive qualitative study. Data were gathered using written narratives, individual and focus group interviews. Qualitative content analysis was employed. Results : Three themes were identified: being open to changes, distancing oneself, and challenging one’s understanding. In the first theme, students’ critical reflection was expressed through an openness to changes of self-perception and openness to professional development during the education. In the second theme, critical reflection was identified as variations on distance-taking. Inserting distance from a direct experience makes the experience easier to process, understand and relate to the learner’s concept of nursing. In the third theme, courage to question what was taken for granted is identified as a necessity to challenging self-understanding and willingness to engage in uncertainty. Conclusions : It would appear that the academic part of training, with the possibility of reflection in small groups, provides students with conceptual tools for reflective learning as well as giving them the opportunity to relate critically to professional practice and to the professional nurse role.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.401 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207