An Online International Collaborative Learning Program During the COVID-19 Pandemic for Nursing Students: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Given the limitations imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, a better understanding of how nursing programs around the globe have implemented distance education methods and related initiatives to provide international collaborative learning opportunities as well as complementary aspects of practical education would be constructive for nursing students. It is expected that international collaboratives through web-based communication will continue to be increasingly utilized after the pandemic; therefore, it is time to discuss the effects and direction of these developments. Objective We aimed to examine the impact of an online international collaborative learning program on prelicensure nursing students’ international and global competencies in South Korea. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study (web-based surveys and focus group interviews). A total of 15 students participated in the study. The surveys were used to examine changes in participants’ global leadership competencies, and the focus group interviews were used to evaluate the program’s effectiveness and to identify opportunities for improvement. The online international collaborative program consisted of 7 synchronous web-based classroom sessions. Each session ran for 60 to 90 minutes. Faculty experts and nurses working in the United States discussed various topics with students, such as nursing education in the United States and evidence-based teaching and learning. The students gave presentations on the South Korean nursing education system. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, the Mann-Whitney U test, and content analysis methods. Results Participants reported improvement in their global leadership competencies. Four main categories emerged from analysis of the focus interviews: (1) realistic applicability, (2) clarification, (3) expansion of perspectives, and (4) initiative. Conclusions The online international collaborative learning program had a positive impact on the development of students’ international competencies. The findings support the further development of international exchange programs through web-based meetings in the postpandemic era.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".