Faculty Perceptions of Teaching Nursing Content Online in Prelicensure Baccalaureate Nursing Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of nursing faculty regarding the nature, challenges, and strengths of teaching course content online in prelicensure collaborative baccalaureate nursing programs and the implications for online course delivery. METHOD: This was an exploratory-descriptive, mixed-methods design based on document analysis, an online survey completed by 32 faculty, and interviews with 16 faculty in a representative sample of 13 English speaking colleges in Ontario. RESULTS: Participants perceived content containing complex cognitive concepts, experiential learning as in relational practice, and psychomotor skill mastery as better suited for traditional classroom delivery. Faculty identified challenges with developing higher level online discussions and having students collaborate. CONCLUSION: Online teaching took much more time and should be acknowledged in workload assignments. A hybrid teaching environment was preferred. Online education was useful when the content and the semesters/years were appropriate, and necessary supports were in place. [J Nurs Educ. 2020;59(12):683-691.].
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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, 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".