Nursing faculty teaching characteristics as perceived by nursing students: an integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Nursing faculty members play a pivotal role in the achievement of nursing students' learning outcomes. A broader understanding of what constitutes effective teaching is essential in order to ensure that effective learning takes place in the clinical area. This review sought to identify the most and least effective nursing faculty characteristics as perceived by nursing students. METHODS: An integrative review of the literature was undertaken. Studies were sourced from the following electronic databases: PsycINFO, PubMed Central, CINAHL, Medline and Scopus. An electronic search of relevant studies published between 2001 and 2017 was conducted using the following search terms: 'nursing', 'students', 'nurse faculty', 'nurse tutor', 'nurse educator', 'effective', 'clinical education', 'effectiveness', 'clinical instructor', 'nurse instructor', 'teaching behaviour', and 'teaching characteristics'. FINDINGS: Twenty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. This review revealed that nursing students value nursing faculty's competence and interpersonal skills over their personality traits. Furthermore, the review highlighted that there exists a lack of studies that examine individual factors, which may influence nursing students' choice of teaching behaviours. Future studies linking teaching behaviours and nursing student learning outcomes are recommended. CONCLUSION: Nursing faculty must strive to improve their professional competence and interpersonal skills in order to better provide quality education to nursing students.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".