Andragogy and teaching techniques to enhance adult learners’ experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurse educators need to be cognizant of their instructional methods to ensure they are using appropriate techniques to effectively teach students as adult learners. Andragogy is the practice of teaching adult learners; its role and application in concept-based nursing education in the online, classroom, and clinical teaching contexts are explored in this reflective literature review. Concept-based curriculum is a method of teaching that utilizes active learning strategies to aid in developing critical thinking skills and knowledge comprehension. Reflections on incorporating andragogy to teach in a concept-based curriculum in nursing by a novice educator is also presented along with selected teaching techniques that has been utilized to solidify nursing students learning. It has been shown that non-traditional teaching techniques such as simulation, case studies, debates, and creating a “flipped” classroom can be effective in applying andragogy in a concept-based curriculum model. Incorporating andragogy within the concept-based curriculum is vital for equipping nursing students with necessary critical thinking and reflection skills required for nursing 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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".