The arts as a catalyst for learning with undergraduate nursing students: findings from a constructivist grounded theory study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a growing interest in arts-based pedagogy (ABP) to promote the wide range of competencies needed for professional nursing. The aim of this study was to develop a theoretical understanding of how students learn through ABP in undergraduate nursing education.Methodology and Methods: We used a constructivist grounded theory methodology which incorporated art-elicitation interviews. Thirty nursing students and eight nurse educators shared about their ABP experiences. Data were analyzed with grounded theory procedures.Results: The arts as a catalyst for learning emerged as the core category and elucidates how the unique quality of the arts created powerful pedagogical processes for many students. When students engaged with these processes, they resulted in surprising and transformative learning outcomes for professional nursing.Conclusions: These findings provide insight into why and how students learned through ABP, and can inform the effective implementation of ABP into healthcare 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it