Learning beyond expectations: Evaluation of an international nursing student exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Purpose: Study abroad programs, through international exchanges in undergraduate nursing schools, are becoming common in response to a globalized world and imperative for nurses to acquire cultural awareness and related competencies. Increased recognition of exchanges exists, with limited empirical evaluation of learning outcomes. The purpose of this study was to understand the impact of a short-term international exchange on Portuguese and American nursing students in respect to its influence on learning.Methods: A mixed-method research design was utilized for data collection. Online survey (demographic data and revised HPSISN tool) and focus group data collection using synchronous chat groups captured nursing student experiences and perceptions about their participation in a two-sided exchange.Results: Focus group data from sixteen nursing students (aged 20-39) delineated two major themes: 1) Expectations of the student exchange with three subthemes: a) motivations to participate, b) met versus unmet expectations, and c) beyond expectations; and, 2) Learning (how and what) with six subthemes: a) understanding cultural differences, b) recognizing a different health care system, c) reconsidering the role of the nurse, d) building team work, e) integrating theory into practice, and f) peer mutual learning. Survey data across the four dimensions: 1) Perspectives of exchange, 2) attitude toward community involvement, 3) future professional work and, 4) personal reflection exhibited students acquired personal and professional competencies that were beyond their expectations of the exchange.Conclusions: Results strongly support nursing student participation in international exchange programs develops personal growth and professional competencies that may impact future practice when caring for diverse patient populations. Universities should develop and foster global programs for student engagement.
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 | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".