A Case for Open Pedagogy in Nursing Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Open pedagogy increases access to equitable nursing education with its commitment to the scholarship of "teaching and learning" and critically framed, student-centered, relational, and open knowledge principles. PURPOSE: This study examined the operation of and factors that nurture and challenge the practice of open pedagogy in an undergraduate digital distance nursing education program. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative methodology was used to examine linkages between open pedagogy and a nursing education program in an open digital distance Canadian university. A critical realist research paradigm provided the framework for the study. RESULTS: Our findings shed light on how open pedagogy is practiced in relation to its 5 principles and delve into the major themes of nurse educator agency, course design, and institutional structure. CONCLUSIONS: The study addresses a dearth in the literature by exploring the potential of open pedagogy to increase access to meaningful and critically framed 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".