MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019136257

An Examination of Block and Integrated Practice Learning Models within Employer Sponsored Pre-Registration Nursing Programmes

2023· other· en· W7019136257 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Research Online (The Open University) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityUniversity of WaterlooMichigan State UniversityFlinders UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of SurreyUniversity of WollongongCurtin University of TechnologyUniversity of the Sunshine CoastUniversity of New South WalesNewcastle UniversityAuckland University of Technology, New ZealandUniversity of Waikato
KeywordsPracticumBlock (permutation group theory)CurriculumSample (material)StakeholderMultinomial logistic regressionSituational ethicsQualitative research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

United Kingdom [UK] pre-registration nursing programmes [PRNPs] allocate half their curriculum learning hours to practice-based education which predominantly involves supervised workplace experience based on a block and/or integrated practicum model. Nevertheless, remarkably little robust research investigates the relative effectiveness and strengths/shortcomings of these models. br/brbr/br This mixed-methods study examines block and integrated placements within employer-sponsored BSc (Hons) PRNPs provided by a UK-based distance learning university. Beliefs/experiences of the two practicum designs shared by 37 respondents from four stakeholder groups were acquired via semi-structured interviews. Quantitative analysis involving a sample of 460 nursing students was also undertaken to ascertain whether exclusive exposure to one placement type affected withdrawal/achievement rates. br/brbr/br The research question for this investigation was: i‘What effect does a sponsor’s decision to adopt an integrated or block model of practice learning for those PRNP students whom they employ as non-registrant carers have on the student learning experience and retention/achievement?’/i.br/brbr/br Qualitative content analysis of the interviews yielded five common themes. Most importantly, respondents perceived the block model as more effective in promoting affinity, facilitating role transition, and mitigating against perceived difference, although the integrated framework was deemed preferable for services releasing students from their non-registrant carer work. Based on these results, critical situational factors requiring consideration when selecting the most appropriate practicum model are identified.br/brbr/br Subsequent crosstabulation and multinomial logistic regression analyses failed to demonstrate any statistically significant relationship between placement structure and student retention/degree classification. Finally, qualitative study data were re-analysed against the theory of human relatedness [THR]. It is argued that stakeholders may form their view of specific placement models by implicitly evaluating them against criteria akin to the key THR propositions. Improving practicum experiences might, therefore, also necessitate revising learning environment audit tools, challenging stakeholder practicum design prejudices and changing emphasis within PRNP curricula to better address these propositions.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Research Online (The Open University)Same topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207