Les pratiques évaluatives d’enseignants en soins infirmiers lors des stages : une étude descriptive qualitative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since no study has yet been able to assess the Quebec portrait of teachers' evaluation practices in the context of clinical education in nursing. Considering the importance of clinical teaching and evaluation in the education of nursing students, this study is justified. This article presents the results of a study that aimed to describe and understand the experience of teachers in the ongoing assessment of nursing students' learning during clinical education. It aimed to describe the evaluation practices of teachers during the learning of students in clinical education and achievement context, and to identify factors influencing these practices. In the context of descriptive qualitative research, the data collection was mainly based on the description of practices reported and collected during interviews realized with 10 nursing teachers of a college of the region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean (SLSJ, Quebec, Canada). The results allowed, for instance, to identify and to describe the evaluation practices led in this specific context of the study : the direct and indirect observation ; the questions asked to the sudent and to the group of sutdents and individual and group feed-back. They also allowed to enumerate and to categorize factors which can influence these practices, that is facilitates factors, barriers and faiths.
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 | 0.049 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".