Nursing Students’ and Faculty Members’ Experiences of Comfort during Transition to Context-Based Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence supporting student-centered learning (SCL) as an effective pedagogy to prepare professionals to work in the evolving health care system of the twenty-first century. SCL has many benefits, among them that it helps students to learn to work in teams and develop problem-solving, critical thinking and communication skills. The focus on the student means that the teacher's power is decreased. This, along with openness of the approach, can make the transition to SCL a challenge. This study used an exploratory descriptive qualitative design to explore how comfortable nursing students and faculty members were in a context-based learning (CBL) program, a version of SCL. Nursing students and faculty discussed common challenges of trusting the CBL process. They also discussed the emphasis on self-directed learning and how it could mean that tutors are not as involved with students. To enhance a smooth transition, recommendations have been made, including clarifying the CBL philosophy at orientation, and mentoring and reassuring students.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".