MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387023809 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v14n1p21

Promoting design thinking in nursing education: Experience of Moroccan undergraduate students in a surgical department

2023· article· en· W4387023809 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternshipNursingNurse educationTest (biology)Medical educationExploratory researchHealth carePsychologyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective: “Design Thinking” is a problem-solving strategy focused on human behavior and needs. Within education, it is a collaborative approach with significant potential to produce innovations that address current issues. The Higher Institute of Nursing Professions and Technical Healthcare in Morocco is a public institution that provides training for nursing and healthcare technicians. By examining the contribution of design thinking in helping students overcome challenges during their internships, this study aims to improve the education experience of nursing students by promoting the adoption of this approach in their clinical practice.Methods: This study is descriptive and exploratory, using the design thinking approach of the d-School at Stanford University with Moroccan students at the Higher Institute of Nursing Professions and Technical Healthcare of Tetuan. The study follows a five-step process (Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test) and includes 21 selected nursing students as designers during clinical training in a surgical ward under the guidance of their nurse educator. The designers then collaborated with the other nursing students on their surgical rotations and presented the solutions. Two satisfaction questionnaires were distributed among the designers and participating students to assess how this approach aided in addressing the identified problems.Results: Using design thinking allowed students to be familiar with the management of the surgical department, how it operates, and the expectations of the training. The approach yielded numerous solutions, which the designers compiled into a guide for improving the clinical education experience for all nursing students. The satisfaction questionnaire results indicate that 76% of designers see potential in using this approach to overcome practical difficulties, and 52% believe it enhances the learning experience. However, the guide format received a satisfaction rate of 91% among end-users.Conclusions: The use of the “Design Thinking” process showed that the conceptual thinking framework helped the nursing students understand the difficulties they faced during the first contact with the field placement. Promoting design thinking among nursing students has become an essential tool to generate innovations, and address challenges by developing competencies in a professional environment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.400 · 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