Some Factors that Influence Students’ Experiences, Engagement, and Retention in a Practical Nursing Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on qualitative data from a larger study that was designed to identify some of the factors that influence practical nursing students’ experiences, engagement, resilience, attrition, performance in the program and professional licensing examination. Some descriptive statistics were included in this paper in order to provide context of the demographics of the students in the program. We explored and identified some factors that influence practical nursing students’ experiences and attrition in the practical nursing program at a community college in the Prairie Region in Alberta. Students enrolled in the program during Winter 2015 term were invited to participate in the study. 263 students consented to participate in the study and completed an online survey on student engagement and belongingness. A total of three focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to gather more information on students’ experiences. Exit interviews were completed with 21 students who dropped out of the program. Thematic analysis was done on FGDs and exit interviews. The themes that emerged from the data as main factors that influenced student experiences include institutional, social, and cognitive factors. Exit interview data shows that students “depart” due to financial, academic, family, and career choice changes. Cet article fait état de données qualitatives tirées d’une plus grande étude conçue pour identifier quelques-uns des facteurs qui influencent les expériences, la participation, la résilience, le taux d’attrition et le rendement des étudiantes infirmières au sein du programme et lors de l’examen d’accréditation professionnelle. Des statistiques descriptives sont présentées de sorte à fournir un contexte démographique des étudiants dans le programme. Nous avons exploré et identifié des facteurs qui influencent les expériences et le taux d’attrition des étudiantes infirmières dans un programme de soins infirmiers auxiliaires d’un collège communautaire dans la Prairie Region en Alberta. Nous avons invité les étudiants inscrits au programme pendant le semestre d’hiver 2015 à participer à l’étude. Au total, 263 étudiants ont accepté d’y participer et ont complété une enquête en ligne portant sur la participation des étudiants et leur sentiment d’appartenance. Trois discussions ont eu lieu avec des groupes de consultation afin de recueillir davantage d’information sur les expériences des étudiants. Des entrevues de départ ont eu lieu avec 21 étudiants qui ont quitté le programme. Les discussions des groupes de consultation et les entrevues de départ ont été soumises à une analyse thématique. L’analyse a permis d’identifier des facteurs qui influencent les expériences des étudiants. Parmi ceux-ci, notons des facteurs institutionnels, sociaux et cognitifs. Les données des entrevues de départ indiquent que les étudiants quittent le programme pour des motifs financiers, académiques, familiaux ou en raison d’un changement de choix de carrière. Mots clés : sentiment d’appartenance; décrochage; soins infirmiers auxiliaires; participation des étudiants; rétention des étudiants
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".