Collaborative Nursing Education Partnerships: Faculty Experience of Shared Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative partnerships between universities and colleges represent a new kind of synergism with potential to improve the quality of nursing education and ultimately patient care. These partnerships can also be challenging due to the difference in the respective organizational cultures, institutional mandates, and missions. There is a lack of research investigating the faculty member experiences within collaborative partnerships. In this paper we report on nursing faculty members’ experience of offering a shared integrated context-relevant undergraduate-nursing curriculum within one Western Canadian collaborative nursing education partnership. Using a qualitative descriptive research design, we conducted two focus groups, one at the college and one at the university, to discuss their experience of adopting a shared curriculum. College and university nursing faculty involved in teaching year two of the new integrated context relevant baccalaureate curriculum were eligible to participate. We audio-recorded the focus groups and analyzed the transcribed data using thematic analysis. We identified five key themes within the broad categories of positionality and perceptions that were critical elements in shaping the nursing faculty experience in both institutions: a) unique institutional culture and norms, b) shared curriculum communication, c) feelings of uncertainty, d) desire for reciprocity among nurse educators within the partnership, and e) vision for a dream team. Ultimately, the nursing faculty at both the college and university were positive in their belief that offering a shared curriculum can contribute to improving the overall quality of collaborative nursing education programs and undergraduate student education.
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 | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".