Ethical Considerations for Children Undergoing Surgery: Evaluation of Graduate Nursing Students’ Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To challenge dominant conceptions of children and innovate nursing education, our team created an open-access training module (https://childsxethics.net/) addressing ethical considerations for children undergoing surgery. Objective: To evaluate the level of Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning reached by graduate nursing students after completing the training module. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted using Bloom’s Taxonomy. Data sources comprised of participants’ course assignments. Results: Participants (n=19) wrote 19 online reflections, 43 peer responses and completed two group assignments. The module and associated class assignments promoted high levels of cognitive and affective learning. The type of assignment influenced participants’ levels of learning. Cognitive and affective learning processes were enhanced when integrating reflections and fostering interactions among learners. Implications: Study findings will inform future iterations of the training module. Our innovative educational resource will facilitate the recognition of children as active moral agents and improve their surgical experiences.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".