When are nursing students on clinical placements ready to expand their learning repertoire?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning styles indicate an individual’s preferred way of learning. Research suggests that it is important for students on clinical placements to begin the learning process with the preferred learning style and subsequently develop their ability to use other styles and become more balanced learners. What is unknown is when baccalaureate nursing students are ready to develop the other learning styles, and what facilitates such an expansion in their learning style repertoire? This is important, because students need to develop the abilities to learn both by acting and by deepen their knowledge of theory to meet the requirements of the nursing profession. An American study found that operating room students felt confident to adopt new learning styles by the third week of clinical placements. No studies to date have retrieved a similar pattern of readiness to expand learning style repertoire among nursing students. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate when students are ready to expand their learning style repertoire in a Baccalaureate Nursing Programme and to investigate the factors that influence such an expansion. Data were generated through participant observations and interviews. The findings indicated that students were ready in different weeks, and that interaction with nurses, the context, and the type of ward in the clinical placement were crucial factors for students to be able to expand their repertoire. The conclusion was that both students and preceptors need to be ready before students can adopt and develop other learning styles.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".