A transformational study abroad process model for nursing educators consideration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Preparing nursing students within the college or university setting to make a positive difference in today’s global society increasingly includes opportunities to study abroad. Maximizing the transformational benefits of these experiences while minimizing the potential ill effects must be a focus of those who develop and implement these programs. This research was conducted to better understand the entire study abroad experience from the student point of view in order to develop a holistic model for nurse educators to utilize in the development of curricular and support programming.Methods: A descriptive, qualitative survey with 72 baccalaureate nursing and other art and science degree alumni from a mid-sized, private, Christian university in the United States who studied for a semester in a third world country was conducted. These participants provided essay answers to four questions regarding the impact, challenges, and opportunities appreciated throughout their study abroad experience, as well as recommendations for future study abroad programming. The responses were analyzed and the results compared with the theoretical framework upon which the study was based.Results and conclusion: Five major components of a transformative study abroad experience were exemplified. The first related to the characteristics of the sojourner, and the remaining four to a comprehensive patterned experiential process by which students moved through their study abroad experience towards transformation and action. The findings provide both a conceptual model and practical insights for nurse educators to consider as they prepare future nurses to engage their world for good through study abroad experiences.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".