Nurse Educators' Experiences With a Faculty Navigator Program: A Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a gap in studies examining formal mentorship programs designed for ongoing faculty support. Method: A mixed-methods explanatory research design was used to examine nurse educators' experiences of a navigation-based mentoring program in a baccalaureate nursing program in Western Canada. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the means of three subsets of the Capabilities of Nurse Educators (CONE) questionnaire. Interviews were conducted, and data were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. Results: The findings highlight the positive effects the faculty navigator program had on faculty's confidence and development as educators. The most significant finding was the in-time relational support that faculty navigators provided to prevent new faculty from feeling alone in their new role. Conclusion: The faculty navigator program is effective for its setting. This program could be expanded to facilitate stronger learner-centered approaches to teaching in various settings with faculty of varying expertise. [ J Nurs Educ . 2022;61(10):587–590.]
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".