A narrative inquiry into the experience of a practical nursing graduate with private tutoring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disability studies are an established area of scholarship in education and this has been my passion for the last decade. Students living with disabilities in healthcare profession education (including nursing, personal support, occupational and physical therapy), as well as the use of professional tutors as an educational support among this population, is under researched. Throughout my practice as a professional health sciences tutor, I have wondered how this population of students experiences both one to one tutoring over time and educational accommodations. In this Narrative Inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000), my co-participant and I go on a journey together to explore how a graduate from an Ontario Registered Practical Nursing program with a diagnosed disability impacting her learning experienced individualized tutoring. Through a series of five semi-structured narrative interviews and self-reflection, the co-participant???s story was re-constructed and analyzed using the Narrative Inquiry three-dimensional space (temporality, sociality, and place). This Narrative Inquiry highlights the temporal connections of life events and how social conditions mutually shape and change personal conditions. Four narrative threads: barriers to access, stigmatization, individuality in education, and paradoxical conflicts among caring professions. It also highlights the importance of reflective practice, barrier-free inclusive education, and the need for further research into tutoring practice, education and policy. Tutors must establish a relationship that allows for exploration of context and building of a contextually-meaningful program, one in which learning is fostered.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it