MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900654992 · doi:10.1016/j.ijnss.2018.11.006

Effectiveness of a training program based on maker education for baccalaureate nursing students: A quasi-experimental study

2018· article· en· W2900654992 on OpenAlexaff
Kaihan Yang, Zhixia Jiang, Freida Chavez, Lianhong Wang, Changrong Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersChinese Medical Association
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)PsychologyMedical educationNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Maker education is a dominant force in education reform and is viewed as a revolutionary way to learn. As innovative pedagogy is continuously explored in the field of nursing, the emerging role of maker education must be examined. This research aims to build a nursing bachelor education program based on maker education and to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. METHODS: Forty volunteer junior students majoring in nursing from a college were the subjects for this quasi-experiment. The training program for nursing students based on maker education was developed and implemented as an additional class for a period of 12 weeks. Before and after the experiment, two measures including the "Williams Creative Scale" and "Current Status Questionnaire of Nursing Students' Learning" were adopted for investigation, and corresponding statistical methods were used for analysis. The degree of satisfaction with this training program was investigated after the experiment. RESULTS: < 0.05). Most of the students expressed satisfaction with this training program (72.5% were very satisfied, 15.0% were partially satisfied, and 12.5% were not satisfied). CONCLUSION: Implementing the training program based on maker education enhanced student creativity, learning interest, cooperative learning skill, scientific research ability, and information attainment. Comprehensive nursing talents were also cultivated. Our data suggested the importance of improving this program, adopting the method, and pursuing research in nursing education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.435 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing SciencesSame topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207