MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784183989 · doi:10.14288/1.0361766

Facilitating critical thinking and clinical judgment in clinical nursing education

2017· article· en· W2784183989 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Desrosiers

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingCritical thinkingPsychologyPedagogyMedicineMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses who can critically think and make clinical judgments in the clinical setting are crucial to safe and effective nursing care. This type of critical thinking and clinical judgment is best developed during clinical education, which provides students with the opportunity to bridge the theory to practice gap. Clinical instructors guide students’ development of critical thinking and clinical judgment in the clinical setting. Despite clinical instructors having such a significant impact on critical thinking and clinical judgment there is limited research on how they facilitate students’ development of critical thinking and clinical judgment. This qualitative analysis explored how clinical instructors facilitate the development of critical thinking and clinical judgment of nursing students. This study used interpretive description to analyze interviews with eight clinical instructors to develop themes and subthemes within the data. These themes were discussed in relation to definitions of critical thinking and clinical judgment, indicators for evaluation, clinical teaching strategies, and contextual facilitators and barriers. Clinical instructors who took part in this study defined the concept of critical thinking as : The process that leads to clinical judgment, the decision. Evaluation was based on broad indicators of patient safety, effective communication, students’ confidence in their ability to critically think and make clinical decisions, and taking ownership of their patient care. Clinical instructors identified a variety of clinical teaching methods that they adapted and individualized to specific student needs. Clinical instructors also use multiple strategies to meet student needs, which they then adapt for each cohort. Contextual factors also impact students’ development of critical thinking and clinical judgment such as buddy nurses, the school of nursing curriculum, clinical ]instructors, and the nursing student themselves. This study identified suggestions for curriculum development, clinical instructor development, and potential areas for future research in relation to clinical education. Clinical instructors are key components of nursing education and the development of critical thinking and clinical judgment in nursing students; as such, it is important to understand their perspectives on how they develop these student abilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207