MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094213516 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v11n2p19

The evidences of innovative teaching the critical and creative thinking, integrated and problem-solving abilities in RN-BSN students

2020· article· en· W3094213516 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ya‐Lie Ku, Pei-Yu Lee, Shih-Ming Kuo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumCritical thinkingClass (philosophy)Creative thinkingCreative problem-solvingPrincipal (computer security)Set (abstract data type)PsychologyMathematics educationCreativityComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The principal investigator has integrated the teaching strategies and activities of critical and creative thinking with integration and problem-solving abilities in the process of guiding nursing students in the course of Nursing Practicum Project Production (NPPP) for seven years. Although the course has developed a set of indicators for evaluating the products; however, there is a lack of indicators of evaluating the critical and creative thinking, integration and problem-solving abilities of the nursing students. In the 2018 year, the professional growth program for the teachers through the expert meeting and faculties discussion has developed the indicators of evaluating the critical and creative thinking, integration and problem-solving abilities for the nursing students completing the course of NPPP. The purpose of this study was to explore the evidences of the innovative teaching among the critical and creative thinking, integration and problem-solving abilities of nursing students before and after the course of NPPP.Methods: The mixed methods including the quasi-experimental and four factor designs were used in this study and the samples were the two-year program nursing students of the AB classes with the majority of them who have had the clinical working experiences. A class was the experimental group, integrating the teaching strategies and activities of critical and creative thinking, integration and problem-solving abilities. B class was used the traditional teaching. The two classes of nursing students were conducted self-assessment of the critical and creative thinking, integration and problem-solving abilities before and after the 2019 course of NPPP to understand the effectiveness of innovative teaching in the critical and creative thinking, integration and problem-solving abilities of RN-BSN students.Results: The critical and creative thinking, integration and problem-solving abilities of RN-BSN students in A class not only has improved significantly after conducting the innovative teaching, but also has the higher scores than the comparison B class. Additionally, no matter the principal investigator or other two faculties instructed the A group of RN-BSN students, the critical and creative thinking as well as the integration and problem solving abilities of RN-BSN students have improved before and after the NPPP course although there is the tendency of decreasing four abilities from group 1 to 4, but did not approach in the significant level.Conclusions: It is the evidences of the innovative teaching of critical and creative thinking, the integration and problem solving abilities for RN-BSN students in the first five weeks of the NPPP course. Additionally, the principal investigator instructed the group 1 and 2 that performed better than group 3 and 4 by the other two instructors that might be interesting to further study the group 1 and 2 dynamics as beneficence of teaching those thinking and abilities by the principal investigator.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.392 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207