MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199629262 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v12n1p41

Academic writing among first-term students in the nursing programme at the Swedish Red Cross University College − A description of a three-term transprofessional project in collaboration with the library and the student support unit at Södertörn University

2021· article· en· W3199629262 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Stålberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadClass (philosophy)Medical educationSubject (documents)Higher educationMathematics educationPsychologyPerspective (graphical)PedagogyMedicineComputer scienceLibrary sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives: The academization of the nursing education has emphasized the need for students to acquire academic literacies both for educational and clinical reasons. However, for long being a practical profession, nurse students do not always reflect on the importance of being academic literate. This aim of this article was to describe the teaching of introductory academic writing to first-term students in the Swedish Red Cross University College’s nursing programme, implemented as a transprofessional collaboration project involving the Swedish Red Cross University College and the library as well as the student support unit at Södertörn University.Methods: A model was used for implementing teaching of academic literacies to first-term nursing students embedded in a discipline-specific course. The model consisted of two seminars, one introductory seminar focusing on academic writing and how to search for, read, appraise, and use research articles and one feedback seminar. Peer feedback was performed by the students. In between the seminars, the students began to work on their course assignment and later finalized the assignment using the feedback provided by teachers and peers.Results: The transprofessional collaboration in teaching academic literacies was described as successful. Teachers and students found the embedding of academic writing in a subject-specific course as useful, although – from a student perspective – demanding and partly difficult. The provision of feedback was regarded as helpful and encouraged the students to finish their assignments. Although being a team of teachers, the large class sizes resulted in an extensive workload and stressful situations. Yet another challenge, important for the sustainability of the model, was to win support for teaching academic literacies among all teachers in the nursing programme.Conclusions: The transprofessional collaboration when teaching academic literacies to first-term nursing students have indicated advantages and challenges, of which both are of importance to consider carefully in the further planning and implementation of the project.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207