Baccalaureate Program Evaluation, Preceptors, And Closing The Theory-Practice Gap: Is There A Connection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curriculum evaluation and renewal is a cornerstone of nursing education. Systematic program evaluation in baccalaureate nursing education relies on feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders. Clinical preceptors represent an underutilized stakeholder group. Situated in both clinical practice and clinical education, preceptors have a unique and valuable perspective on the ability of the curriculum to prepare pre-licensure learners for professional practice. The author suggests that preceptor-stakeholders can be actively engaged in program evaluation: this kind of engagement relies on a paradigm shift from predominantly objectivist evaluation strategies to approaches that are more participatory and pluralistic. Readers will identify the significant role of clinical nursing preceptors as key stakeholders in BScN curriculum evaluation. Further, the author speculates that a pluralistic evaluation paradigm may help both nursing faculty and nurses in clinical practice understand the perspective of the other group, thus reducing the perceived theory-practice gap and creating more responsive baccalaureate nursing curricula.
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 | 0.258 | 0.393 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".