Nurse and midwife educators’ experiences of translating teaching methodology knowledge into practice in Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The aim of this study was to explore how nurse and midwife educators applied the knowledge and skills acquired from attending acontinuous professional development (CPD) workshop on teaching methodologies into their teaching practices in Rwanda. Methods A qualitative descriptive design was used with a purposive sample of 15 nursing and midwifery faculty members from six private and public post-secondary schools in Rwanda. Participants were involved in semi-structured individual interviews. Inductive content analysis was used for generating themes. Results Five themes emerged describing the educators’ teaching experiences: (1) enhanced teaching practices competencies; (2) application of knowledge and skills gained into classroom and clinical teaching; (3) collaboration and teamwork; (4) facilitators and challenges faced to the application of the knowledge and skills into practice; and (5) indirect outcomes to maternal, newborn, and child health care. Conclusion CPD workshops about teaching methodologies for nurse and midwife educators offer a substantive means of improving the quality of nursing and midwifery undergraduate education in Rwanda. There is, however, an ongoing need to address existing barriers to applying knowledge and skills to the practice of teaching.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".