English as an Additional Language Learners’ Journey Through Nursing Education in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• EAL nursing students struggle significantly more than their non-EAL peers in nursing school. • Recently graduated EAL nurses’ insights on their time as nursing students has not yet been studied. • New perspective to robustly support current EAL student nurses in Canadian undergraduate programs. Nursing students who speak English as an additional language (EAL) face significant challenges throughout their educational programs. This issue is attributed to numerous causes including admission standards, cultural biases, and other factors. This research study explored the lived experiences of recently graduated EAL nurses, looking back on their Canadian undergraduate nursing education programs. Interpretive description methodology was used in this study. Data sources included interviews with 5 recently graduated EAL nurses as well as artefacts from the public domain including blogs, videos, and a podcast. Three major themes were identified: (1) meaningful connections: “I know what you are going through”; (2) additional mental load: “You will put in more work than your non-EAL peers”; and (3) being an outsider. Understanding the lived experience of recently graduated EAL nurses has the potential to inform and improve pedagogical practices in Canadian nursing education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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".