Building Bridges Through Understanding the Village Workshop: Transforming Nursing Students’ Perspectives of Indigenous People and Canadian History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mixed methods design using a cross-sectional survey was used to describe participants’ experiences of an experiential workshop entitled Building Bridges Through Understanding the Village. The Building Bridges workshops were held at a university located in Western Canada in 2016 with 213 attendees. Informed by Indigenous epistemology, cultural safety, and Kolb’s experiential learning theory, a student-led team comprised of undergraduates, graduates, and faculty members planned, implemented, and evaluated an arts-based experiential workshop. Following acquisition of a signed informed consent, 159 participants consented to evaluate the workshop. The majority of workshop participants were undergraduate nursing students. Overall, the workshop was positively reviewed and highly rated. The overarching theme in the narrative responses about the workshop was “Words can only do so much.” This theme encapsulated three categories: 1) imaginative empathy, 2) made me feel made me think, and 3) moving towards reconciliation. The results support the evidence that meaningful learning occurs through personal experience, reflection on those experiences, and integration of the new knowledge. The role-playing aspect of this workshop engaged attendees in a novel learning activity and facilitated an iterative cycle of experience (role-playing) and reflection (group discussion and narrative responses). By inviting participants to step into the lives of Indigenous peoples throughout history and feel what they might feel, deep insights were elicited at both a cognitive and emotional level. This workshop is one of many strategies to ensure that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action are honored. Nursing educators from across Canada are encouraged to consult Elders from local Indigenous communities and implement similar experiential workshops for their students to enhance their understanding of Canada’s history and promote culturally safe nursing practice. Further research is needed to explore the impact of other educational strategies to adequately prepare nursing students for entry-level competencies. In particular, a future study is needed to explore Indigenous patients’ perspectives of their interactions with these workshop participants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".