MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282979434 · doi:10.4102/curationis.v45i1.2261

Technology usage for teaching and learning in nursing education: An integrative review

2022· review· en· W4282979434 on OpenAlexaff
Gopolang Gause, Isaac O. Mokgaola, Mahlasela Annah Rakhudu

Bibliographic record

VenueCurationis · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Learning and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences North
FundersNorth-West University
KeywordsNurse educationNursingMedical educationPsychologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The increasing availability of technology devices or portable digital assistant devices continues to change the teaching-learning landscape, including technology-supported learning. Portable digital assistants and technology usage have become an integral part of teaching and learning nowadays. Cloud computing, which includes YouTube, Google Apps, Dropbox and Twitter, has become the reality of today's teaching and learning and has noticeably improved higher education, including nursing education. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this integrative literature review was to explore and describe technology usage for teaching and learning in nursing education. METHOD: A five-step integrative review framework by Whittemore and Knafl was used to attain the objective of this study. The authors searched for both empirical and non-empirical articles from EBSCOhost (health information source and health science), ScienceDirect and African Journals Online Library databases to establish what is already known about the keywords. Key terms included in literature search were coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), digital learning, online learning, nursing, teaching and learning, and technology use. RESULTS: Nineteen articles were selected for analysis. The themes that emerged from this review were (1) technology use in nursing education, (2) the manner in which technology is used in nursing education, (3) antecedents for technology use in nursing education, (4) advantages of technology use in nursing education, (5) disadvantages of technology use in nursing education and (6) technology use in nursing education amidst COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Technology in nursing education is used in both clinical and classroom teaching to complement learning. However, there is still a gap in its acceptance despite its upward trend.Contribution: The findings of this study contribute to the body of knowledge on the phenomenon of technology use for teaching and learning in nursing education.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.408 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations129
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurationisSame topicE-Learning and COVID-19French-language works237,207