Seeking transformation: how students in nursing view their academic writing context – a qualitative systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing practices in nursing education programs are situated in a tension-filled context resulting from competing medical-technical and relational nursing discourses. The goal of this qualitative meta-study is to understand, from the student perspective, how the context for writing in nursing is constructed and the benefits of writing to nursing knowledge development. A literature search using the CINHAL, Medline, ERIC, and Academic Search complete databases, using systematic methods identified 21 papers and dissertations which gathered qualitative interview or survey data from students in nursing at the pre-registration, continuing education, and graduate levels. The studies provided evidence that writing assignments promote professional identity development but overemphasis on writing mechanics when grading have a deleterious effect on learning and student engagement with writing. Relationship building with faculty should extend beyond what is needed to maximize grades. Suggestions for writing pedagogical reform are identified to facilitate a change in focus from mechanical-technical to transformative writing.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 it