Just Because I Am A “Student” Does Not Mean I Should Tolerate It: Students’ Perspectives of Forum Theatre to address Bullying In Nursing Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors of this paper developed a CRAB (Cognitive Rehearsal to Address Bullying) Workshop, using Forum Theatre as an innovative pedagogical approach to explore the overly prevalent issue of bullying in nursing education. We designed two open-ended descriptive written surveys to obtain feedback from students on the efficacy of the workshop with respect to students’ ability to address bullying, and with respect to their capacity to engage in related embodied learning through Forum Theatre. We collected survey data at two points in time; 1) following a workshop during students’ first year in the program and 2) following a workshop during students’ final term in the program. We identified three overarching themes from the surveys: 1) The Socio-Political Context; 2) Psychological Safety; and 3) Ways of Learning. We developed each of these themes by creating, expanding, and collapsing our collective interpretation of the data. The majority of the student feedback we collected was positive. In this paper we describe the survey-based study, discuss our analysis of findings, and highlight students’ voices through verbatim quotes. In closing, we offer recommendations and questions for nurse educators and academic leaders to consider.
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 | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".