Raising nurse educators’ awareness regarding caring pedagogical relationships’ barriers to foster inclusive simulation settings: Insights from a phenomenological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this paper was to shed light on the main barriers to caring pedagogical relationships within simulation centers from the perspective of nursing students and offer targeted strategies to reduce these barriers. BACKGROUND: A caring pedagogical relationship is a powerful strategy to foster students' learning within simulation settings. However, the development of this relationship could be hindered if nurse educators are not aware of its barriers. Hence, this could affect students' learning and well-being within this academic context. According to our knowledge, no previous research has addressed the question of the barriers to caring pedagogical relationships within the context of simulation. DESIGN: This study employed a descriptive phenomenological method, entitled Relational Caring Inquiry, to collect and analyze data gathered from 19 students enrolled in an undergraduate nursing program. RESULTS: This paper focuses on one eidos-theme that emerged from our data analysis and interpretation entitled "Educator's conscientization regarding barriers to the development of a caring pedagogical relationship". According to data analysis and interpretation, this eidos-theme was the most emphasized by research participants. It emerged from the following themes: (a) educators' dehumanizing practices, (b) disruptive and stressful academic context, (c) lack of educators' experiences and (d) educators' disinterest in students' learning. CONCLUSIONS: Leaving caring pedagogical relationships' barriers unaddressed has shown adverse impacts on students' learning process and their mental and physical well-being. This paper brings to light the main barriers to caring pedagogical relationships and invites educators, managers and nurse leaders to be aware of these obstacles and collectively engage in humanizing nursing education. In other words, we emphasize the impact of these barriers on students' apprenticeship and suggest political actions to build caring and inclusive simulation environments. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: CERSES-19-050-D.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".