↓ Skip to main content

How can students contribute? A qualitative study of active student involvement in development of technological learning material for clinical skills training

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How can students contribute? A qualitative study of active student involvement in development of technological learning material for clinical skills training
Published in
BMC Nursing, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12912-016-0125-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cecilie Haraldseid, Febe Friberg, Karina Aase

Abstract

Policy initiatives and an increasing amount of the literature within higher education both call for students to become more involved in creating their own learning. However, there is a lack of studies in undergraduate nursing education that actively involve students in developing such learning material with descriptions of the students' roles in these interactive processes. Explorative qualitative study, using data from focus group interviews, field notes and student notes. The data has been subjected to qualitative content analysis. Active student involvement through an iterative process identified five different learning needs that are especially important to the students: clarification of learning expectations, help to recognize the bigger picture, stimulation of interaction, creation of structure, and receiving context- specific content. The iterative process involvement of students during the development of new technological learning material will enhance the identification of important learning needs for students. The use of student and teacher knowledge through an adapted co-design process is the most optimal level of that involvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 11%
Lecturer 11 9%
Researcher 8 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 6%
Other 30 25%
Unknown 35 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 20%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Arts and Humanities 8 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 41 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,182,150
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#389
of 748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,229
of 395,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 748 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.