Do student demographics and country location affect the international learning experience of nursing students?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Nursing students who participate in overseas placements are considered to have excellent opportunities to broaden their horizons and promote their personal and professional development. This study examines and compares nursing students’ learning outcomes from their international experience in various countries.Methods: This is a cross-sectional descriptive study. The study was conducted in a university that arranges overseas clinical placements for nursing students in pre-registration programmes. The participants were students in different years of study from a variety of nursing programmes. A questionnaire developed by the researchers, the International Education Survey was used to collect data.Results: One hundred and forty-five valid questionnaires were collected. The students spent their summer overseas placement in a variety of countries, including the United Kingdom, United States, Japan, and mainland China. On a macro level, students benefitted from the experiences. For international perspective, the students who visited Japan gave the highest rating of 5.30 (SD = 0.51), while the score for China was among the lowest at 5.02 (SD = 0.51). For personal development, the mean score was 4.58 (SD = 0.84) for students who visited China, while the highest mean score was 5.16 (SD = 0.54) for students who visited the US. For intellectual development, the lowest mean score was 4.45 (SD = 0.97) for students who visited China, while those who visited the US gave the highest rating of 5.14 (SD = 0.62). There was a significant difference in the scores for personal development between students who travelled to different countries, at p < .05. A chi-square test showed a significant association in international perspective between junior and senior students.Conclusions: Demographics and country location influenced the students’ overseas learning experience. Nurse educators are encouraged to use a reflective approach to help students to identity what they have gained from their placement, to maximize the value of their overseas 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".