Theory – Practice Gap: Challenges Experienced by Nursing Students at the Satellite Campus of a Higher Education Institution in Namibia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Theory practice gap is the discrepancies found between what students learn in the formal classroom setting and what they experience in the clinical settings. Observations reveal that nursing as practised is task-centred and students rarely get involved in anything approaching the total care of individual patients, thus leading to theory-practice gap.Objectives: The study explored and described the challenges faced by Bachelor of Nursing (clinical) honours students when integrating theory into practice in the clinical settings.Method: The study, which was granted ethical clearances from two institutions, drew on an exploratory phenomenology methodology to gather data from ten nursing students registered at a satellite campus. The participants were purposively selected with data collected via focus group interviews. Thereafter, data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis. The study data collection and analysis adhered to ethical principles and quality measures in order to ensure credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Results: Nursing students experience challenges in integrating theory and practice. These challenges are grouped into four themes; theory verses practice, limited resources in clinical settings, discriminatory attitudes and communication barriers.Conclusion: Nursing students appreciated accompaniment and supervision by nurse educators. However, the accompaniment’s impact on learning may be undermined through the students’ limited exposure to clinical cases. Therefore, long-term strategies are recommended for effective integration of theory with practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".