“Mutual Respect Would be a Good Starting Point:” Students’ Perspectives on Incivility in Nursing Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Studies indicate that incivility is common in nursing education and perpetuated by both students and faculty. Academic incivility negatively affects the well-being of those involved, interferes with the teaching–learning process, and is antithetical to nursing as a caring profession. An understanding of academic incivility is essential to establish best practices to address this problem. Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine incivility in nursing academia from the perspective of baccalaureate nursing students. Methods The study was conducted using a cross-sectional design, with a mixed method questionnaire administered to 380 students. The quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and qualitative data through content analysis. Results The majority of students thought incivility is a mild to moderate problem in nursing education. They thought that students contribute to incivility by not taking responsibility (being unprepared and being disinterested) for their education and by not being professional (being disrespectful and being uncaring) and faculty contribute by not being good teachers (being authoritarian, treating students unfairly, having ineffective teaching methods) and not being professional (being disrespectful, lacking compassion). Conclusion Until evidence is available for effective measures to address incivility, nursing schools should consider adopting strategies for solutions as suggested by the students in this study.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".