Influence of co-teaching on undergraduate student learning: A mixed-methods study in nursing.
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
Co-teaching has been explored in the field of education but is a relatively new phenomenon in higher education. Its benefits and challenges are well documented; however, what is lacking is substantive evidence highlighting the influence of co-teaching amongst undergraduate students. Particularly, in practice-based professions like teaching, nursing, and social work, active participation in collaborative teams is more the norm than the exception. Undergraduate students need to have opportunities to learn how to be collaborative, as well as observe modeling of collaborative teaching practice. In the article, we report on a 2-year mixed-methods research study that investigated students’ and instructors’ experiences with co-teaching in a Nurse as Educator course. The findings from three cohorts engaged in the research suggest co-teaching to be an effective teaching and learning strategy. However, for co-teaching to be a positive experience for both students and instructors, purposeful scaffolding and supports need to be in place. Also outlined are recommendations for higher education with regard to designing and modeling co-teaching practice.
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 | 0.040 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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