MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7082150716 · doi:10.11575/prism/49946

Affectivity in Screen Based Simulation in Nursing Education: An Interpretive Description Study

2025· other· en· W7082150716 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisEmbodied cognitionNurse educationCurriculumQualitative researchPerspective (graphical)Grounded theoryCognitionInstructional simulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expanded adoption of screen-based virtual simulation in nursing education was a response to the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure the continuity of nursing instruction. This change in instructional approach provided an opportunity to explore the experiences of nursing students who have had increased exposure to this teaching method. Nursing simulation creates a learning experience that is both engaging and meaningful for students, helping them connect theory with real-world clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to explore nursing students' experiences with affective learning through the framework of embodied cognition, suggesting that this perspective offers a more complete way of understanding the learning process as being inherently affective. The research aimed to assess affective learning within the existing screen-based simulation curriculum and to explore how nursing students perceive and engage with affective learning in these virtual environments. Additionally, the concept of embodied cognition was utilized to provide insights into how nursing students develop their affective skills through virtual simulations. This study adopted a qualitative interpretive description approach to gather data from eight undergraduate nursing students across two Canadian universities. Participants completed digital reflective journals to document their experiences after each screen-based simulation scenario. Follow up, semi-structured interviews were conducted and recorded via Zoom. All interview transcripts and journal entries were transcribed verbatim. A constant comparative and thematic analysis process identified four primary themes: communication, realism, affective connections, and personal learning experiences. The findings suggest that the current simulation design stimulates affective learning in ways that are not captured in the conventional idea of a confined “affective domain.”, potentially limiting opportunities for students to engage in meaningful affective learning experiences. Exploring nursing students’ affective experiences of learning offered valuable insights and illustrative examples of affective learning occurring even in the absence of explicitly articulated affective objectives, thereby underscoring the idea that all learning is intrinsically affective. The theoretical framework of embodied cognition provides a novel perspective in nursing education on understanding and articulating the affective learning processes that occur during interactions with virtual patients in screen-based simulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→