Metodologias de ensino-aprendizagem sob a perspectiva de discentes de enfermagem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: avaliar as metodologias de ensino-aprendizagem adotadas por docentes de um curso de Enfermagem, sob a perspectiva discente. Métodos: pesquisa com métodos mistos do tipo convergente. Recorte de projeto amplo de avaliação de programa, com uso do modelo Contexto, Insumos, Processo e Produto. Dados quantitativos (estudo transversal com dados secundários) e qualitativos coletados concomitantes e, posteriormente, triangulados. Resultados: sobre as metodologias de ensino adotadas por docentes, os discentes participantes referiram maior utilização de aulas expositivas e dialogadas, 161 (67,6%), entre professores das disciplinas básicas; e de aulas expositivas e não dialogadas, 226 (92,6%), por docentes de disciplinas específicas da enfermagem. Em todas as disciplinas, predominaram metodologias tradicionais de ensino e avaliação. Conclusão: os discentes participantes consideraram as metodologias predominantemente tradicionais e desejaram vivenciar métodos ativos, destacando a necessidade da interdisciplinaridade e maior integração ensino-serviço-comunidade.
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 | 0.028 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".