Learner-centred teaching in a non-learner-centred world: An interpretive phenomenological study of the lived experience of clinical nursing faculty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the growing complexities in the contemporary health care system, there is a challenge of preparing nurses for the practice demands. To this end, learner-centred teaching has emerged in many nursing curricula in Canada and evidence indicates its effectiveness in developing the essential practice skills in nursing students. It is important to examine the experience of the clinical faculty members who implement learner-centred teaching, as doing so would provide an insight to the factors that may hinder the implementation of learner-centred teaching in the practice settings. OBJECTIVE: This phenomenological study aimed to address two research questions: what does learner-centred teaching mean to clinical nurse faculty? What is the lived experience of clinical nursing faculty who incorporate learner-centred teaching? METHODS: Ten clinical nurse faculty members who had at least two years of clinical teaching experience volunteered to participate in the study. Data were collected using a semi-structured interview guide and audio recorder. Additional data sources included a demographic survey and a reflective journal. RESULTS: Multiple sub-themes emerged from this study from which three significant themes were consolidated: diversity of meanings, facilitators of LCT, and barriers to LCT. However, an overarching theme of "learner-centred teaching in a non-learner-centred world" was coined from participants' accounts of their experiences of barriers in incorporating LCT in the practice settings. CONCLUSION: A collaborative effort between faculty and the stakeholders is paramount to a successful implementation of learner-centred teaching in practice settings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".