An Innovative Approach to Adult Education in a Two-Year BScN Program: Creating Partnerships in Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the program described in this paper, innovation in nursing education is presented as a response to specific tensions between academic and practice environments in the nursing field. As a unique partnership between a university in northern Ontario and three health care delivery organizations in a large urban environment, the Scholar Practitioner Program (SPP) is an accelerated two-year post degree leading to a Bachelor of Science in Nursing. Using narrative inquiry and cognitive apprentice pedagogies, SPP partners developed an experiential program in which students act as inquirers and co-creators as opposed to receivers of knowledge. Students are also immersed in practice settings throughout the program, supported by clinically based faculty, and connected, at all points, by communication and learning technologies. The benefits, challenges, and opportunities associated with this program from inception to the time of writing are presented for the reader's consideration. The purpose of this reflection on the SPP journey as it includes faculty, students, administrators, and other partners is to inspire others interested in advancing nursing education in Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".